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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed on March 30, 2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1-20 are pending and are being examined in this application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections have been considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US Pub. 20160063381) in view of Nahamoo et al. (US Pub. 20210406735).
Referring to claim 1, Allen discloses A method, comprising:
receiving a query from a user device for posting to a communication modality [pars. 16 and 23; a first user enters a question into an electronic communication tool];
determining, using a chat bot associated with the communication modality, that the query corresponds to a stored question associated with a stored answer in a knowledgebase by... [pars. 18 and 23; a question answering system analyzes the question to identify candidate answers stored in informational databases (e.g., FAQ data sources)];
providing, via the chat bot, the stored answer to the user device with a prompt to forgo posting the query to the communication modality [pars. 23 and 24; the first user is provided with the candidate answers and a dialog box with options to continue sending or cancel sending the question]; and
…the query is posted to the communication modality and a responsive answer to the query is received within the communication modality [pars. 16, 17, 49, 52, and 53; the question is communicated (i.e., posted) to a second user, the second user communicates an answer (e.g., by selecting one of the candidate answers) to the first user].
Allen does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the knowledgebase is created specifically for the communication modality and stores question- answer pairs identified from prior communications within the communication modality; determining that the query corresponds to a stored question associated with a stored answer by mapping the query to an input vector representing a meaning of the query using a semantic engine, and determining that a distance between the input vector and a stored vector corresponding to a meaning of the stored question is less than or equal to a threshold distance; and automatically creating and storing, via the chat bot, a new question-answer pair in the knowledgebase when the answer to the query is received.
However, Nahamoo discloses wherein the knowledgebase is created specifically for the communication modality and stores question-answer pairs identified from prior communications within the communication modality [par. 126; each customer network application/platform that constitutes a separate source of data to be ingested may be associated with a separate, dedicated, cache structure to store question-and-answer records originating from that application]; determining that the query corresponds to a stored question associated with a stored answer by mapping the query to an input vector representing a meaning of the query using a semantic engine [pars. 51, 52, 65, and 66; a query is represented as one or more vectors based on a BERT model (i.e., a semantic representation model)], and determining that a distance between the input vector and a stored vector corresponding to a meaning of the stored question is less than or equal to a threshold distance [pars. 51, 52, 65, and 66; the query vectors are matched to an answer using a distance criterion]; and automatically creating and storing, via the chat bot, a new question-answer pair in the knowledgebase when the answer to the query is received [pars. 11, 12, 29, 30, 99, 129, 131, and 132; question-and-answer pairs are stored in the question-answer cache].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the question answering system taught by Allen so that question-and-answer pairs are stored in a question-answer cache dedicated to the electronic communication tool and a BERT model is used to match questions to answers as taught by Nahamoo, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve search accuracy and speed [Nahamoo, par. 6].
Referring to claim 2, Nahamoo discloses The method of claim 1, comprising adding the stored question to the knowledgebase by: accessing, within the communication modality, the stored question and the stored answer [pars. 51, 52, 65, and 66; the query vectors are used to match the query to stored questions and identify answer candidates associated with the stored questions]; identifying, using an artificial intelligence engine [pars. 51, 52, 65, and 66; the BERT model is a learning model], that the stored answer is responsive to the stored question pars. 11, 12, 29, 30, 99, 129, 131, and 132; user feedback may indicate that the answer is satisfactory]; and storing the stored question in association with the stored answer in the knowledgebase [pars. 11, 12, 29, 30, 99, 129, 131, and 132; question-and-answer pairs are stored in the question-answer cache].
Referring to claim 3, Nahamoo discloses The method of claim 1, comprising adding the stored question to the knowledgebase by: receiving, from an administrator device, the stored question and the stored answer for storage in the knowledgebase [par. 68; content (i.e., question-and-answer pairs) may also be stored in the question-answer cache by an administrator].
Referring to claim 4, Allen discloses The method of claim 1, the communication modality being a team chat channel [par. 16; the electronic communication tool may be a work communication tool].
Referring to claim 5, Allen discloses The method of claim 1, receiving the query comprising: accessing, by the chat bot, the query while the user is typing the query into an input box at a graphical user interface of the user device [par. 20; the question is communicated to the question answering system as the user is constructing the message (with the question)].
Referring to claim 8, see at least the rejection for claim 1. Allen further discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising the claimed steps [fig. 1, processor 125, memory 128, question answering system 130].
Referring to claim 9, see the rejection for claim 2.
Referring to claim 10, see the rejection for claim 3.
Referring to claim 11, see the rejection for claim 4.
Referring to claim 12, see the rejection for claim 5.
Referring to claim 15, see at least the rejection for claim 1. Allen further discloses An apparatus comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to perform the claimed steps [fig. 1, processor 125, memory 128, question answering system 130].
Referring to claim 16, see the rejection for claim 2.
Referring to claim 17, see the rejection for claim 3.
Referring to claim 18, see the rejection for claim 4.
Referring to claim 19, see the rejection for claim 5.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen and Nahamoo in view of Li et al. (US Pub. 20170109355).
Referring to claim 6, Allen and Nahamoo do not appear to explicitly disclose The method of claim 1, the semantic engine being configured to map queries in multiple different natural languages to input vectors.
However, Li discloses The method of claim 1, the semantic engine being configured to map queries in multiple different natural languages to input vectors [pars. 47 and 89; a question answer system can be trained to answer questions input in different languages, where a respective query vector is generated for each question].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the question answering system taught by the combination of Allen and Nahamoo so that the questions can be input in different languages as taught by Li, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the answering of questions in additional languages [Li, par. 89].
Referring to claim 13, see the rejection for claim 6.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen and Nahamoo in view of Zhou et al. (US Pub. 20230099588).
Referring to claim 7, Allen and Nahamoo do not appear to explicitly disclose The method of claim 1, providing the stored answer to the user device comprising: providing a link to a page comprising text or a video representing the stored answer.
However, Zhou discloses The method of claim 1, providing the stored answer to the user device comprising: providing a link to a page comprising text or a video representing the stored answer [abstract; an enterprise knowledge assistant displays automated responses to question provided by users; an automated response may include a linked electronic document].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the question answering system taught by the combination of Allen and Nahamoo so that the candidate answers may include links to electronic documents as taught by Zhou, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to only provide the access to the electronic documents to users with access rights [Zhou, abstract].
Referring to claim 14, see the rejection for claim 7.
Referring to claim 20, see the rejection for claim 7.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, 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 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.
/Grace Park/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights