DETAILED ACTION
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 .
● This action is responsive to the following communication: an amendment filed on 1/14/2026.
● Claims 2-21 are currently pending; claim 1 has been canceled.
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.
Claim(s) 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singaraju et al (US 20200057946) in view of Reschke et al (US 20180121500).
Regarding claim 2, Singaraju discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a natural language input (input utterance, pars. 9-10);
comparing the natural language input with natural language input examples (comparing/analyzing input utterance with matching keywords/phrases, pars. 138-139), wherein the natural language input includes concatenated natural language words or phrases of multiple labels from the labeled knowledge graph; wherein the natural language input examples include concatenated natural language words or phrases (concatenated words/phrases samples, pars. 71-76) of multiple labels from a labeled knowledge graph of an application program;
based on the comparing, determining that the natural language input is for a function (functions of application program, pars. 150-152) provided by the application program; and based on the determining, invoking (par. 178) the function provided by the application program (pars. 28-32).
Singaraju fails to teach and/or suggest parsing (pars. 16, 41, and 63) a knowledge graph of an application program.
Reschke, in the same field of endeavor for natural language processing, teaches a method of parsing a knowledge graph of an application and generating natural language input samples.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by modifying natural language processing of Singaraju to include a method of parsing a knowledge graph of an application and generating natural language input samples as taught by Reschke because it offers several transformative advantages over traditional flat data or keyword-based systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sangaraju with Reschke to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Singaraju further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the comparing is performed using a pre-trained language model (pre-trained language model, pars. 143-146) that analyzes the natural language input.
Regarding claim 4, Singaraju further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the labeled knowledge graph comprises nodes and links, wherein the nodes and the links (links/nodes, pars. 105, 121, 122) between the nodes in the labeled knowledge graph are labeled with a natural language word or phrase, and wherein parsing the labeled knowledge graph includes identifying the nodes and the links between the nodes.
Regarding claim 5, Singaraju further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the concatenated natural language words or phrases include a word or phrase (pars. 73-76) used to label a link appended to an end of a word or phrase used to label a preceding node (pars. 101, 105).
Regarding claim 6, Singaraju further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the concatenated natural language words or phrases include a word or phrase used to label a link (pars. 4-8) prepended to a beginning of a word or phrase used to label a preceding node (pars. 101. 105).
Regarding claim 7, Singaraju further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein each of the natural language input examples corresponds to a functionality (functionality of application program, pars. 150-152) provided by the application program.
Regarding claim 8, Singaraju further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the comparing further comprises: determining one of the natural language input examples that is most similar (pars. 74-77) or closest to the natural language input; providing a correspondence (par. 133) between the one of the natural language input examples and the labeled knowledge graph (labeled knowledge graph, pars. 133-135) of the application program; and based upon the correspondence, identifying a provided by the application program.
Regarding claims 9-21 recite limitations that are similar and in the same scope of invention as to those in claims 2-8 above; therefore, claims 9-21 are rejected for the same rejection rationale/basis as described in claims 2-8.
Response to Arguments
● Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
● Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 1/14/2026, with respect to claims 2-21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection (abstract idea) of said claims has been withdrawn.
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 THIERRY L PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7439. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 11-6.
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, Hai Phan can be reached at 571-272-6338. 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.
/THIERRY L PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654