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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant's communication filed on 05/19/2026. In virtue of this communication, claims 8-20 are currently pending in the instant application.
Claims 8, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 20 are amended without adding a new subject matter.
Claims1-7 have been previously withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected embodiment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8-20 have been considered:
With regard to rejection under 35 U.S.C 101, the rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed on 05/19/2026.
With regard to prior art rejection, the argument have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment filed on 05/19/2026.
Response to Arguments: Applicant argued that Deselaers fails to describe or suggest "analyzing the plurality of types of information using a second component of the collaborative analysis system, wherein the plurality of types of information, analyzed using the second component, are obtained from a knowledge base," further argued “A combination of Deselaers and Crouch fails to disclose all of the features of claim 11.
The sections of Crouch cited in the Office Action (Office Action, pages 16-17) do not remedy the deficiencies of Deselaers. Crouch is directed to a text indexing and passage retrieval system in which a knowledge base 212 holds a collection of source documents (Crouch, paragraph [0037]); a document preprocessor 320 walks those source documents to generate a passage index360 that maps keywords from each passage to the corresponding source documents (Crouch, paragraphs [0041] and [0060]); and a passage analyzer 218 uses the passage index to identify which source documents are responsive to a search query in a question-answer system (Crouch, paragraphs [0042] and [0064]). Crouch therefore describes a knowledge base that holds source input data (documents and their keyword annotations) indexed for retrieval by a search query. Claim 8, by contrast, recites a plurality of types of information regarding the digital content based on analyzing the digital content using the first components, and further recites that the plurality of types of information, analyzed using the second component, are obtained from a knowledge base. The claimed knowledge base thus holds analytical outputs generated upstream by first components from their analysis of the digital content, for downstream consumption by a second component, rather than holding source input data indexed for query-driven retrieval. Crouch does not describe or suggest that architecture, and the Crouch sections cited in the Office Action do not bridge that structural difference. In addition, the Office Action does not articulate sufficient reasoning to support the proposed combination of Deselaers and Crouch. The Office Action relies on the statement that the combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function and that incorporating Crouch into Deselaers would have been obvious in order to accurately identify and analyze the relation between different parts of a document (Office Action, pages 17 to 18). Under MPEP 2143, an obviousness rejection requires some articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. The reasoning offered in the Office Action does not address why a person of ordinary skill in the art developing Deselaers' real-time, in-line communication assistance model for detecting problematic statements within a user-composed communication (Deselaers,- 15 paragraphs [0023] to [0024]) would have looked to a question-answer system that operates over a pre-existing indexed corpus of source documents (Crouch, abstract; Crouch, paragraph [0003]). Further, Deselaers and Crouch operate on different inputs (Deselaers operates on a single in-progress user-composed communication as the user types, while Crouch operates on a pre- existing corpus of source documents), at different times (Deselaers analyzes communication data in real time during composition, while Crouch performs offline preprocessing and indexing of source documents followed by query-time retrieval), and toward different ends (Deselaers detects and suggests replacements for problematic statements before the communication is sent, while Crouch retrieves passages of source documents responsive to a search query”.)
Examiner Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees, Examiner notes the amended portion is a portion of claim 11, which had been previously addressed but it does not include all of the intervening claims 11 and 9 limitations. The argued limitation has been rejected by the combination of prior arts Deselaers and Crouch not single reference Deselaers. Examiner notes the prior art Crouch discloses the argument portions as below, Couch ¶[0022] discloses a database of information as a “knowledge base”. Further ¶[0024] discloses that the knowledge base are parsed to generated an annotates passage index containing multiple types of contextual information, including document titles, section headings, synonyms, parts of speech, syntactic dependencies, and semantic relationships. Further ¶[0041] discloses documents preprocessing engine 214 parsed documents to generated sets of annotations, including section-heading information, document-title information, and concept identifiers.¶[0058] discloses document processor 320 generates semantic metadata, including syntactic dependencies, semantic representation, and stores such information in metadata file 350. The Metadata file 350 may contain a “shared body of knowledge” learned by parsing source documents and a downstream passage analyzer searches the metadata file to understand semantic relationships between different portions of the content. Further see ¶[0059-0060] disclose document processor 320analyze these extracted passage keywords to generate annotations and store these annotations. along with the extract passage keywords in passage index 360. ¶[0064] discloses a passage analyzer 218 may execute a passage search through passage index 360 and metadata file 350 and analyze the stores document context to relate different portions of the documents. Crouch discloses an upstream components generating multiple type of analytical or contextual information, storing the information in the organized repository and downstream components of the stored information.
Further Examiner notes the claimed “knowledge base” is not limited to a structure bearing the express label “knowledge base 212”. The claim does not require any particular physical database. Annotated passage index 360 which generated form metadata file 350, corresponds to the claim knowledge base because it stores different types of generated information regarding the content for subsequent analysis by the passage analyzer. Applicant’s own specification ¶[0043] discloses its knowledge base data structure broadly as including database, table, ques, or linked list that stores digital content and information concerning the content. Further Examiner notes the claim do not require that the analysis occur continuously while user is typing, prohibit preprocessing, require that the digital content be newly composed, or exclude analysis of previously stored content. Deselaers ¶[0027-0028] disclose communication may be analyzed a single time before transmission, multiple time while the communication is entered, or periodically according to a schedule and the analyzed communication data may include an entire message.
Further both Crouch and Deselaers are in the concept of computer based natural language analysis of textual content and the use of contextual and semantic relationships in analyzing that content. the test is what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of the ordinary skill, not whether the entire system of one reference may be physically incorporated into the other. MPEP 2145, III.
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior arts of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior arts or discloses by examiner.
As for other claims, Applicant provided same arguments. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and provides similar rationale as indicated above.
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.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 11, 12, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deselaers et al. (US 2018/0137400), in view of Crouch et al. (US 20160078102).
As per claim 8, A computer program product for determining unintended interpretations of content, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising: “program instructions to analyze digital content using first components of a collaborative analysis system;”(Deselaers, ¶[0024] discloses the systems and methods can receive and analyze a textual communication as the user types it into the composition interface.¶[0032] discloses the detection portion of the communication assistance model can include a feature extraction component that extracts one or more features of the communication to be analyzed. ¶[0044] discloses the context component can receive the identity of the author, the identity of the recipient, and/or other contextual information as inputs and, in response, output a context score. For example, the other contextual information can include a message thread that led to the current communication. )
“program instructions to determine a plurality of types of information regarding the digital content based on analyzing the digital content using the first components;”( Deselaers,¶[0032] discloses the detection portion of the communication assistance model can include a feature extraction component that extracts one or more features of the communication to be analyzed. ¶[0045] discloses the context score can include one or more numerical scores that indicate expected values for certain communication characteristics (e.g., tone, language, grammatical precision, etc.).)
“program instructions to analyze the plurality of types of information using a second component of the collaborative analysis system;”( Deselaers,¶[0046] discloses the context score can be input into the remainder of the detection portion of the communication assistance model (e.g., an LSTM recurrent neural network) along with the communication itself. The context score can assist the detection portion of the communication assistance model in determining which, if any, portions of the communication should be identified as problematic.)
“program instructions to determine one or more unintended interpretations of the digital content based on analyzing the plurality of types of information;”(Deselaers, ¶[0023] discloses the communication assistance model can include a long short-term memory recurrent neural network that detects an inappropriate tone or unintended meaning within a user-composed communication and provides one or more suggested replacement statements to replace the problematic statements. ¶[0034] discloses categories of problematic statements can include inappropriate language (e.g., offensive or derogatory terms or euphemisms); inappropriate tone (e.g., passive-aggressive tone or overly aggressive tone); statements that reveal confidential information; legally problematic statements; and/or an unintended meaning. Thus, training the detection portion of the communication assistance model (e.g., a deep LSTM recurrent neural network) on an appropriate training dataset can further enable the communication assistance model to not only recognize explicitly offensive words but also perform the more complex task of detecting more subtle problematic statements such as, for example, inappropriate tone, derogatory euphemisms, or biased language.
“and program instructions to provide information regarding the one or more unintended interpretations to a device.”( Deselaers,¶[0010] discloses The method includes providing, by the one or more computing devices, information regarding the one or more problematic statements for display to the user. ¶[0050] discloses the systems and methods of the present disclosure can notify the user to the existence of the problematic statement in a number of ways. As one example, a non-intrusive notification (e.g., a pop-up window or icon in a lower screen area) can be provided that simply notifies the user of the existence of the one or more problematic statements. If the user selects or otherwise engages with the notification, additional information (e.g., explicit identification of the problematic statements and/or the suggested replacement statements) can be displayed or otherwise provided. )
Deselaers does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Crouch from similar field of endeavor “wherein the plurality of types of information, analyzed using the second component, are obtained from the knowledge base.”(Crouch, ¶[0022] discloses a database of information as a “knowledge base”. Further ¶[0024] discloses that the knowledge base are parsed to generated an annotates passage index containing multiple types of contextual information, including document titles, section headings, synonyms, parts of speech, syntactic dependencies, and semantic relationships. ¶[0037] discloses document preprocessing engine 214 may scan documents for indexing by communicating with such documents located in knowledge base 212 over network 230. Alternatively, document preprocessing algorithm may retrieve any metadata or annotation files associated with documents in knowledge base 212 over network 230 to QA system 210. ¶[0041] discloses document processing engine 214 may parse through each document of the set of documents in knowledge base 212 to generate sets of annotations per document. Such annotations may include text from section headings, document title, concept identifiers for subjects discussed in the passage. ¶[0042] discloses passage analyzer 218 may analyze metadata or annotations describing documents in knowledge base 212 to identify which documents should be included in the passage search. ¶[0058] discloses document processor 320 generates semantic metadata, including syntactic dependencies, semantic representation, and stores such information in metadata file 350. The Metadata file 350 may contain a “shared body of knowledge” learned by parsing source documents and a downstream passage analyzer searches the metadata file to understand semantic relationships between different portions of the content. ¶[0060] discloses document preprocessor 320 may also identify the relevant annotations for each of these keywords, as described above, and store such identified annotations in entries of corresponding keywords in the passage index 360. ¶[0064] discloses a passage analyzer may execute a passage search by simultaneously searching through passage index 360, whether generated directly or indirectly from source document 310, along with metadata file 350. For each passage index entry that document preprocessor 320 parses through, the passage analyzer may search through metadata file 350 to identify how the keywords in the given passage index entry relate to the rest of the document by analyzing the document context that may be found in metadata file 350 for portions of the passage text. )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Crouch technique of known storage and preretrieval contextual and semantic information when identifying unintended meanings into Deselaers technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Crouch technique over detecting problematic statement technique of Deselaers to recognize and identify problematic statements and unintended meaning. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of known technique with each performing their respective known function to improve the similar techniques and devices, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Crouch to Deselaers in order to improve accuracy of identifying and analyzing the relation between different context. (Refer to Crouch paragraphs [0003].)
Claim 15 have been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 8 above.
As per claim 9, The computer program product of claim 8, Deselaers as modified by Crouch further discloses “wherein the program instructions to determine the one or more unintended interpretations comprise: program instructions to analyze information identified by one or more types of information of the plurality of types of information; and program instructions to determine an unintended interpretation based on analyzing the information identified by the one or more types of information.”( Deselaers, ¶[0034] discloses As examples, categories of problematic statements can include inappropriate language (e.g., offensive or derogatory terms or euphemisms); inappropriate tone (e.g., passive-aggressive tone or overly aggressive tone); statements that reveal confidential information; legally problematic statements; and/or an unintended meaning. Thus, training the detection portion of the communication assistance model (e.g., a deep LSTM recurrent neural network) on an appropriate training dataset can further enable the communication assistance model to not only recognize explicitly offensive words but also perform the more complex task of detecting more subtle problematic statements such as, for example, inappropriate tone, derogatory euphemisms, or biased language. In additional implementations, the communication assistance model can detect when an individual composing a communication is intoxicated or otherwise incapacitated. )
As per claim 11, The computer program product of claim 9, Deselaers as modified by Crouch further discloses “wherein the program instructions further comprise program instructions to obtain the digital content from a knowledge base; and program instructions to store the plurality of types of information in the knowledge base”(Crouch, ¶[0022] discloses a database of information as a “knowledge base”. Further ¶[0024] discloses that the knowledge base are parsed to generated an annotates passage index containing multiple types of contextual information, including document titles, section headings, synonyms, parts of speech, syntactic dependencies, and semantic relationships.¶[0037] discloses document preprocessing engine 214 may scan documents for indexing by communicating with such documents located in knowledge base 212 over network 230. Alternatively, document preprocessing algorithm may retrieve any metadata or annotation files associated with documents in knowledge base 212 over network 230 to QA system 210. ¶[0041]discloses document processing engine 214 may parse through each document of the set of documents in knowledge base 212 to generate sets of annotations per document. Such annotations may include text from section headings, document title, concept identifiers for subjects discussed in the passage. ¶[0042] discloses passage analyzer 218 may analyze metadata or annotations describing documents in knowledge base 212 to identify which documents should be included in the passage search. ¶[0060] discloses document preprocessor 320 may also identify the relevant annotations for each of these keywords, as described above, and store such identified annotations in entries of corresponding keywords in the passage index 360. ¶[0064] discloses a passage analyzer may execute a passage search by simultaneously searching through passage index 360, whether generated directly or indirectly from source document 310, along with metadata file 350. For each passage index entry that document preprocessor 320 parses through, the passage analyzer may search through metadata file 350 to identify how the keywords in the given passage index entry relate to the rest of the document by analyzing the document context that may be found in metadata file 350 for portions of the passage text. )
As per claim 12, The computer program product of claim 8, Deselaers as modified by Crouch further discloses “wherein the first components include an image recognition component, and wherein the program instructions to determine the plurality of types of information comprise: program instructions to determine a type of information regarding items identified by the digital content.”( Deselaers, ¶[0032] discloses the detection portion of the communication assistance model can include a feature extraction component that extracts one or more features of the communication to be analyzed. ¶[0045] discloses the context score can include one or more numerical scores that indicate expected values for certain communication characteristics (e.g., tone, language, grammatical precision, etc.). further see ¶[0074].)
As per claim 16, The system of claim 15, wherein, Deselaers as modified by Crouch further discloses “to analyze the digital content, the one or more devices are configured to: analyze, using a first one of the first components of the system, the digital content; and analyze, using a second one of the first components of the system, the digital content and information generated based on the first one of the first components analyzing the digital content.” (Deselaers, ¶[0024] discloses the systems and methods can receive and analyze a textual communication as the user types it into the composition interface.¶[0032] discloses the detection portion of the communication assistance model can include a feature extraction component that extracts one or more features of the communication to be analyzed. ¶[0044] discloses the context component can receive the identity of the author, the identity of the recipient, and/or other contextual information as inputs and, in response, output a context score. For example, the other contextual information can include a message thread that led to the current communication. ¶[0046] discloses the context score can be input into the remainder of the detection portion of the communication assistance model (e.g., an LSTM recurrent neural network) along with the communication itself. The context score can assist the detection portion of the communication assistance model in determining which, if any, portions of the communication should be identified as problematic.)
As per claim 17, The system of claim 15, Deselaers as modified by Crouch further discloses “wherein the one or more unintended interpretations are a plurality of unintended interpretations, and wherein the one or more devices are configured to: aggregate the plurality of unintended interpretations into a first group of unintended interpretations and a second group of unintended interpretations; and provide first information regarding first group of unintended interpretations and second information regarding the second group of unintended interpretations.”(Deselaers, ¶[0034] discloses categories of problematic statements can include inappropriate language (e.g., offensive or derogatory terms or euphemisms); inappropriate tone (e.g., passive-aggressive tone or overly aggressive tone); statements that reveal confidential information; legally problematic statements; and/or an unintended meaning. ¶[0035] discloses the communication assistance model can output one or more confidence scores respectively for the one or more problematic statements identified within the communication. The confidence score for each problematic statement can indicate a confidence that the identified statement is indeed problematic or can otherwise indicate a degree to which the identified statement is problematic. ¶[0036] discloses in some implementations, the confidence score for each identified problematic statement can be compared to a particular threshold value to determine whether to notify the user of the problematic statement or otherwise intervene. Thus, for example, the systems of the present disclosure can ignore a first problematic statement that has a confidence score below the threshold value, but notify the user regarding a second problematic statement that has a confidence score greater than the particular threshold value. Further see ¶[0037], ¶[0050] notify the user to the existence of the problematic statement. ¶[0054],¶[0118]. )
As per claim 18, The system of claim 17, Deselaers as modified by Crouch further discloses “wherein, to provide the first information, the one or more devices are configured: determine that a measure of confidence, associated with the first group of unintended interpretations, satisfies a confidence threshold; and provide the first information based on determining that the measure of confidence satisfies the confidence threshold.”( Deselaers, ¶[0035] discloses the communication assistance model can output one or more confidence scores respectively for the one or more problematic statements identified within the communication. The confidence score for each problematic statement can indicate a confidence that the identified statement is indeed problematic or can otherwise indicate a degree to which the identified statement is problematic. ¶[0036] discloses in some implementations, the confidence score for each identified problematic statement can be compared to a particular threshold value to determine whether to notify the user of the problematic statement or otherwise intervene. Thus, for example, the systems of the present disclosure can ignore a first problematic statement that has a confidence score below the threshold value, but notify the user regarding a second problematic statement that has a confidence score greater than the particular threshold value. ¶[0037] discloses the systems of the present disclosure can provide a non-intrusive notification for a first problematic statement that has a confidence score that is less than a particular threshold value (but greater than a base threshold value), but can automatically replace a second problematic statement (e.g., with a suggested replacement statement) that has a confidence score greater than the particular threshold value. )
As per claim 19, The system of claim 17, Deselaers as modified by Crouch further discloses “wherein, to provide the first information, the one or more devices are configured: determine a first measure of confidence associated with the first group of unintended interpretations; determine a second measure of confidence associated with the second group of unintended interpretations; rank the first information and the second information based on the first measure of confidence and the second measure of confidence; and provide the first information and the second information based on ranking the first information and the second information.”( Deselaers, ¶[0037] discloses the systems of the present disclosure can provide a non-intrusive notification for a first problematic statement that has a confidence score that is less than a particular threshold value (but greater than a base threshold value), but can automatically replace a second problematic statement (e.g., with a suggested replacement statement) that has a confidence score greater than the particular threshold value. ¶[0038] discloses the threshold values for notification/intervention can be a function of a context associated with the communication. In particular, as one example, the threshold values for notification/intervention in a professional communication context may be relatively less than the threshold values for notification/intervention in a casual, light-hearted context. Thus, the systems and methods of the present disclosure can adjust various thresholds based on a determined context. ¶[0054],¶[0118].)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deselaers et al. (US 2018/0137400), in view of Crouch et al. (US 20160078102), further in view of Vogel et al. (US 20140108006).
As per claim 10, The computer program product of claim 8, Deselaers as modified by Crouch does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Vogel from similar field of endeavor “wherein the first components include a semiotic component,” and wherein the program instructions to determine the plurality of types of information comprise: “program instructions to analyze, using the semiotic component, objects identified by one or more of the plurality of types of information; and program instructions to determine a semiotic meaning of the objects, wherein the plurality of types of information includes a type of information identifying the semiotic meaning.”(Vogel,¶[0008-0009] disclose s identifying the semiotic attributes of the documents, such as writing style or genre and writing tone or sentiment, ¶[0068-0069] discloses semiotic analysis and mapping engine are part of the system components. ¶[0110] discloses an isotopy is longitudinal study of topic markers, i.e., a correlational study that involves repeated observations of the same semiotic markers across a series of utterances. These markers define the isotopy code, which in turn will define the semiotic persona of an extracted entity. ¶[0112] discloses the document is collected and then analyzed through dependency grammar parsing, extracting entities and isotopies to form entity semiotic personas. This document will be indexed according to the semiotic personas of entities contained in the document. Further see ¶[0113-0114] discloses This type of parsing surfaces narrative dependencies that will characterize isotopies, which are then used to create a semiotic persona for a given entity contained within an article or document. Creation of an entity persona allows for comparison between a plurality of entities through the mapping of features belonging to each persona. Here, dependency grammar parsing starts by identifying the verbs in each sentence, then identifying entities, arguments and functions attached to the verb. These entities, arguments and functions define features of the entities contained in the article and they are used in the entity map to be leveraged into isotopies. The narrative functions, entities and verbs surfaced through dependency grammar parsing demonstrated in FIG. 24 are listed in FIG. 25. These functions are extracted from the sample text and then mapped with their corresponding entity in order to gauge the semiotic distance between two given entities. Entities that share features will be clustered more closely together on the map. The isotopies across the narrative functions identified here are illustrated in FIG. 26. These extracted narrative functions are grouped by their semiotic markers in order to form different isotopy patterns.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Vogel technique of analyzing content semiotic relationships into Deselaers as modified by Crouch technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Vogel technique over detecting problematic statement technique of Deselaers as modified by Crouch. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Vogel to Deselaers as modified by Crouch in order to enhance a standard recommendation with higher degree of relevancy. (Refer to Vogel paragraphs [0006-0007].)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deselaers et al. (US 2018/0137400), in view of Crouch et al. (US 20160078102), in view of Huang et al. (US 2019/0026253).
As per claim 13, The computer program product of claim 12, Deselaers as modified by Crouch does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Huang from similar field of endeavor “wherein the first components include a layout component, and wherein the program instructions to determine the plurality of types of information comprises: program instructions to determine a type of information that identifies geometric associations between the items identified by the digital content or geometric oppositions between the items identified by the digital content.” (Huang, ¶[0026] discloses the layout of the document based on the calculated features, as well as spatial and grammatical constraints (operation 118). As described further below with reference to FIG. 3, the layout specifies locations of content in the document. Moreover, determining the layout may involve constraint-based optimization based on the spatial constraints and the grammatical constraints. Furthermore, determining the layout may involve calculating a distance metric (such as a Mahalanobis distance metric and, more generally, a distance metric that takes into account correlations in the calculated features and that is scale-invariant) based on the spatial constraints and the grammatical constraints. ¶[0027] discloses hen a first box having the title “box 1” is identified, it may be known that a second box entitled “box 2” is located to the right of box 1 in several documents in the set of documents. In this way, the spatial and the grammatical constraints may be used to uniquely identify the document and its associated layout. ¶[0034], ¶[0043] discloses the document includes boxes (or fields), associated text (or titles), and content in at least some of boxes. Note that there are spatial relationships (such as relative positions) between boxes, and between text and boxes. These specify spatial constraints associated with income-tax document. Similarly, there are grammatical constraints on text in income-tax document.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Huang technique of analysis of an image of a document into Deselaers as modified by Crouch technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Huang technique over detecting problematic statement technique of Deselaers as modified by Crouch. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Huang to Deselaers as modified by Crouch in order to provide better verification of a document. (Refer to Huang paragraphs [0005].)
Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deselaers et al. (US 2018/0137400), in view of Crouch et al. (US 20160078102), in view of Mesheryokov et al. (US 2015/0057991).
As per claim 14, The computer program product of claim 8, Deselaers does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Mesheryokov from similar field of endeavor “wherein the program instructions to analyze the plurality of types of information comprise: program instructions to perform a linguistic analysis of information identified by one or more types of information of the plurality of information;”(Mesheryokov, ¶[0003] discloses analyzing, using one or more processors, a sentence of a first text to determine syntactic relationships among generalized constituents of the sentence, forming a graph of the generalized constituents of the sentence based on the syntactic relationships and a lexical-morphological structure of the sentence, analyzing the graph to determine a plurality of syntactic structures of the sentence. ¶[0037]. )
“and program instructions to determine a semantic meaning of a concept associated with the information identified by the one or more types of information,”( Mesheryokov, ¶[0096], disclose Lexical descriptions include a lexical-semantic dictionary, which includes a set of lexical meanings. The lexical meanings, along with their semantic classes, form a semantic hierarchy where each lexical value may include its reference to a language-independent semantic parent (i.e. the location in the semantic hierarchy), and its semantic value. Each lexical value may also attach various derivatives (such as words, expressions and phrases) that express meaning using various parts of speech, various forms of a word, words with the same root, etc. )
“wherein the unintended interpretation is based on the semantic meaning.”( Mesheryokov,¶[0003] discloses determining a semantic ambiguity in the sentence based on a difference between the first and second semantic structures. ¶[0099] discloses a syntactic ambiguity means that there are several probable syntactic structures at the syntactic analysis stage. Likewise, a semantic ambiguity means that there are several probable semantic structures at the semantic analysis stage.¶[0102] discloses If it is found that there are several different syntactic (semantic) structures with high overall ratings, it may be assumed that there is a syntactical (semantic) ambiguity in the text. )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Mesheryokov technique of language ambiguity detection into Deselaers as modified by Crouch technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Mesheryokov technique over detecting problematic statement technique of Deselaers as modified by Crouch. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Mesheryokov to Deselaers as modified by Crouch in order to determine the ambiguity in the sentences. (Refer to Mesheryokov paragraphs [0003].)
As per claim 20, The system of claim 15, Deselaers as modified by Crouch does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Mesheryokov from similar field of endeavor “wherein to determine the plurality of types of information, the one or more devices are configured: determine a first type of information that identifies one or more items detected in the digital content and determine a second type of information that identifies a relationship between two or more words included in the digital content;”(Mesheryakov, ¶[0004] discloses analyze a sentence of a first text to determine syntactic relationships among generalized constituents of the sentence. ¶ [0036] discloses a rough syntactic analyzer show possible syntactic relationships in the sentence, which is expressed in creating a graph of generalized constituents. which is expressed in creating a graph of generalized constituents based on lexical-morphological analysis performed (by a lexical analyzer) on the lexical-morphological structure. The graph of generalized constituents is an acyclic graph in which the nodes are generalized (meaning that they store all the alternatives) lexical values for words in the sentence, and the edges are surface (syntactic) slots expressing various types of relationships between the combined lexical values. The graph of generalized constituents at the surface model level reflects all the possible relationships between words of the source sentence. ¶[0042] discloses the lexical-morphological structure of the sentence analyzed, including certain word groups, words in brackets, quotation marks, and similar items. )
“and wherein, to determine one or more unintended interpretations, the one or more devices are configured: determine one or more unintended interpretations based on the one or more items or the two or more words.”( Mesheryakov, ¶[0030] discloses the system checking text for ambiguous sentences, The user may be given the opportunity to look at an identified ambiguity and various ways of interpreting a sentence having the ambiguity. See ¶[0126], then ¶[0130] discloses ambiguity may be seen in the sentence: "THE SOIL SHALL BE COVERED BY FERTILIZER BEFORE IT FREEZES". Suppose we have three sentences in three different languages. One sentence is the source English sentence, which contains ambiguity. Two other sentences might be the translations into Russian and German respectively. If people or a machine translation system made the translation and the ambiguity in the source English sentence was not identified, the result is the formation of sentences that differ in meaning. The ambiguity in the source English sentence is that the pronoun "it" may relate either to the noun "soil" or to the noun "fertilizer." For this reason, the translations to the target languages, such as Russian or German, will differ depending on what word the pronoun "it" relates to, and the meaning of the translated sentence will differ as a result. Similar sentences may be understood differently by different translators, so the translations will differ.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Mesheryokov technique of language ambiguity detection into Deselaers as modified by Crouch technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Mesheryokov technique over detecting problematic statement technique of Deselaers as modified by Crouch. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Mesheryokov to Deselaers as modified by Crouch in order to determine the ambiguity in the sentences. (Refer to Mesheryokov paragraphs [0003].)
Conclusion
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 SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30-6:30.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights