DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
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 22 November 2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-8 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.
Claim limitation “component” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See paragraph 0061, identification component, paragraph 0062 evaluation component, paragraph 0086 evaluation component. The structure for performing the function is not clear. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 outputting a word subset and mapping the word subset to a category without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “an identification component that outputs a word subset”, “a mapping component that” maps based on a rule-based process employing matching to a category. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because as presently claimed the claims are directed toward an abstract idea and is grouped within a mental process category. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional generic computer elements, do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. As presently written the claims are directed toward convention elements already recognized in the data processing field.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. RAT-SQL: Relation-Aware Schema Encoding and Linking for Text-to-SQL Parsers in view of Cao et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0129450 A1.
Regarding claim1, Wang et al. teaches the following:
A system, comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise [note: Abstract, When translating natural language questions into SQL queries to answer questions from a database, contemporary semantic parsing models struggle to generalize to unseen database schemas”; Introduction, effectively query databases with natural language includes schema linking aligning entity references in the question to the intended schema columns or tables, resolve the column/table references properly, the semantic parser must take into account both known schema relations and question context]::
an identification component that outputs a word subset based on a word-based input file [figure 1; section 4.3 Schema Linking, matching names and values]; and
a mapping component that, based on a rules-based process employing soft matching, maps the word subset to a category comprising a value for being correlated to the word subset [note: section 4.3Schema Linking].
Although, Wang et al. teach the invention as cited above, they do not explicitly use the term rule-based process; however Cao et al. further details the process by applying a rule [note: paragraph 0108 applying a rule; paragraph 0111, identifying the input text span (i.e. identifying the input file); paragraph 0116 Schema Linking]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing date to have combined the cited references since both references are directed toward optimized query processing and applying rules would allow for customization of the output..
Claim 2: The system of claim 1, wherein the rules-based process employed by the mapping component comprises word vector matching or fuzzy string matching [note: Cao et al., paragraph 0111, various heuristics, matching and fuzzy string matching can be implemented]..
Claim 3. The system of claim 1, further comprising: an evaluation component that assigns a linking score to the word subset and category pair based on the rules-based process, wherein the mapping component uses the linking score to map the word subset to the category [note: Cao et al., paragraphs 0111-0112, and 0115, the decoder maps the user question to the schema; and paragraph 0116 schema linking].
Claim 4: The system of claim 1, wherein the mapping component maps the word subset to the category based on a pairing of the word subset and the category having a higher linking score than a second pairing of the word subset with a second category [note: Cao et al., paragraph 0108, ApplyRule[r]; paragraph 0116 value based linking]..
Claim 5: The system of claim 1, further comprising: a declustering component that removes, from a group of pairings of the word subset and categories, including the category and a second category, a pairing between the word subset and a second category, wherein the pairing has a lower linking score defining the pairing than a linking score defining the word subset and the category pair [note: Cao et al. paragraph 0120 decoder includes implementing most grammar which cover most SQLs; paragraph 0127, technique to reduce the model (i.e. declustering) to enhance performance].
Claim 6: The system of claim 1, wherein the mapping between the word subset and the category, generated by the mapping component, comprises a non-overlapping mapping of the word subset with only the category, of a group of one or more other categories [note: Cao et al., paragraph 0132-0133, means for customization through commands/rules]..
Claim 7: The system of claim 1, herein the mapping component generates the mapping between the word subset and the category only if the rules-based process results in a linking score for a pairing of the word subset and the category that satisfies a defined threshold [note: Cao et al., paragraphs 0132-0133, customization].
Claim 8: The system of claim 1, wherein the value comprises a word match that relates to the word subset [note: Wang et al., section 4.3 schema linking, value-based linking addresses word match].
The scope of the limitations of claims 9-20 parallel claims 1-8; therefore they are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRETA ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Hassan Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/GRETA L ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163