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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because reference character “1008” mentioned in the description is not included in the drawings (Paragraph 91), reference character “1518” has been used to designate both input devices (Paragraph 116) and output devices (Fig. 15), and reference character “1520” has been used to designate both output devices (Paragraph 116) and input devices (Fig. 15). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 2: “Technology and social media has” should read “Technology and social media have”
Paragraph 48: “both of a user and/or an SMG” should read “both a user and/or an SMG”
Paragraph 108: “user selects second option 1300” should read “user selects second option 1302” (second option is previously described as 1302)
Paragraph 119: “each data collection of plurality of data collections” should read “each data collection of the plurality of data collections”
Paragraph 127: “aa data block 5C 1644” should read “a data block 5C 1644”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “executed by the at least one processer” should read “executed by the at least one processor.” Claims 12-20 are objected to for dependency on claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “graphic user interface (GUI) rendering module” in claim 11.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites limitation “graphic user interface (GUI) rendering module” which 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 functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. Therefore, the written description is inadequate to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Claims 12-20 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim. See rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below for further analysis.
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 11-20 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.
Regarding claim 11, claim limitation “graphic user interface (GUI) rendering module” 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. Paragraph 39 of the specification as filed discloses that the graphic user interface (GUI) rendering module “generates graphics and animations for display to users and/or subject matter guides interacting with the system 100 through knowledge portal 120, one or more exploration spaces, and/or other animations and graphics, including icons, images, avatars, logos, banners, and other graphical elements.” This description merely further describes the function of the “graphic user interface (GUI) rendering module” and does not indicate how the graphics are generated. 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. Claims 12-20 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting “graphic user interface (GUI) rendering module” to encompass any computer-based means for rendering graphics.
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.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “the user interface” has insufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to the “communication interface” or the “graphic user interface (GUI) rendering module” recited in claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11, 12, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Solomon et al. (US 20170206797) (“Solomon”).
Regarding claim 1, Solomon discloses “A method of providing an interactive knowledge exploration system for a plurality of users, the method comprising:
generating an exploration space using information from a data collection associated with the exploration space stored in an exploration space database of the interactive knowledge exploration system (graphical user interface (GUI) which presents the Expert Avatar in an appropriate environment (or other connected devices such as a robot) to deliver voice and auxiliary graphics -paragraph 43; the system employs a first database comprised of two stored knowledge bases: (1) a primary knowledge base of anticipated student questions with the Expert Avatar responses, plus graphics, simulations, voice files, videos, pictures, Expert Avatar movements, etc., to complement the responses; and (2) a secondary knowledge base of generalized knowledge about the Expert Avatar, his or her field, and life and times (e.g., biographies, encyclopedia entries, vetted web pages, publications) -paragraph 31; note that the examiner is interpreting “exploration space” to be any user interface where a user is provided with information in various formats to interact with- here the Expert Avatar responses, graphics, simulations, voice files, etc. make up the exploration space.);
providing a user interface that allows a user of the plurality of users to interact with the exploration space (The system preferably employs a computer enabled device (such as a computer, smartphone, tablet, robot, toy, etc.), connected to the internet, as the student's access to an Expert Avatar to support a conversation between the student and the Expert Avatar, whereby responses to queries spoken or otherwise asked by the student are delivered verbally, visually, or otherwise by the Expert Avatar. For example, visual communication could be text, gestures, graphics, videos, or sign language. The student's device has at least a microphone and/or keyboard and desirably a video camera for student input, and at least a display screen and/or audio speaker for system output by the Expert Avatar to the student- paragraph 34); and
engaging in a first discovery session in the exploration space with a first user of the plurality of users, wherein an artificial intelligence engine uses the data collection associated with the exploration space stored in the exploration space database to generate one or more responses to a query from the first user during the first discovery session” (the student makes a query verbally, which is input to the automatic speech recognition system, which then converts the query to text. The text is input to the artificial intelligence system, which may have a natural language processing component to first process the query, to correct spelling, correct common automatic speech recognition translation errors, identify grammatical mood, n-grams and other lexical elements to extract the fundamental meaning of the query. For example, input such as “can you tall me yar age” would be translated to “how old are you.” The artificial intelligence system then compares the simplified query to the database of anticipated queries. If a match to a query in the knowledge base is found with a high confidence value, the artificial intelligence system delivers the knowledge base's corresponding response to the Text to Speech software for verbal delivery by the Expert Avatar- paragraph 44; note that “discovery session” corresponds to the conversation between the student and the Expert Avatar, as the student makes discoveries about a topic from the responses of the Expert Avatar).
Regarding claim 11, Solomon discloses “An interactive knowledge exploration system, the system comprising:
a communication interface allowing communication with one or more users of a plurality of users (an interface in which the Expert Avatar can ask the expert, the teacher, the student, or others for responses to anticipated queries or ask for suggestions on other queries to add to the knowledge base- paragraph 22);
an exploration space database including a data collection associated with at least one exploration space (the system employs a first database comprised of two stored knowledge bases: (1) a primary knowledge base of anticipated student questions with the Expert Avatar responses, plus graphics, simulations, voice files, videos, pictures, Expert Avatar movements, etc., to complement the responses; and (2) a secondary knowledge base of generalized knowledge about the Expert Avatar, his or her field, and life and times (e.g., biographies, encyclopedia entries, vetted web pages, publications)- paragraph 31; note that the examiner is interpreting “exploration space” to be any user interface where a user is provided with information in various formats to interact with- here the Expert Avatar responses, graphics, simulations, voice files, etc. make up the exploration space.);
a graphic user interface (GUI) rendering module rendering and generating an exploration space from the data collection for the exploration space in the exploration space database (graphical user interface (GUI) which presents the Expert Avatar in an appropriate environment (or other connected devices such as a robot) to deliver voice and auxiliary graphics- paragraph 43)
an artificial intelligence engine (the artificial intelligence system performs…) in communication with the communication interface (…delivering the speech by an avatar visualized on the student’s display screen…), the exploration space database (…performing a search of a primary knowledge base to provide a response…), and the GUI rendering module, (…providing accompanying charts, graphs, Expert Avatar behaviors (gestures, facial expressions, actions), simulations, videos and other visual material- paragraph 35) the artificial intelligence engine including at least one processor, a memory, and storage for computer-readable instructions (the artificial intelligence system may consist of a number of software components residing on a single computer or multiple connected servers- paragraph 35)
that, when executed by the at least one processer, cause the at least one processor to:
engage in a first discovery session in the exploration space with a first user of the plurality of users (the system preferably employs a computer enabled device (such as a computer, smartphone, tablet, robot, toy, etc.), connected to the internet, as the student's access to an Expert Avatar to support a conversation between the student and the Expert Avatar, whereby responses to queries spoken or otherwise asked by the student are delivered verbally, visually, or otherwise by the Expert Avatar. For example, visual communication could be text, gestures, graphics, videos, or sign language- paragraph 34; note that “discovery session” corresponds to the conversation between the student and the Expert Avatar, as the student makes discoveries about a topic from the responses of the Expert Avatar)
and generate one or more responses to a query from the first user during the first discovery session using the data collection associated with the exploration space stored in the exploration space database” (the student makes a query verbally, which is input to the automatic speech recognition system, which then converts the query to text. The text is input to the artificial intelligence system, which may have a natural language processing component to first process the query, to correct spelling, correct common automatic speech recognition translation errors, identify grammatical mood, n-grams and other lexical elements to extract the fundamental meaning of the query. For example, input such as “can you tall me yar age” would be translated to “how old are you.” The artificial intelligence system then compares the simplified query to the database of anticipated queries. If a match to a query in the knowledge base is found with a high confidence value, the artificial intelligence system delivers the knowledge base's corresponding response to the Text to Speech software for verbal delivery by the Expert Avatar- paragraph 44).
Regarding claim 12, Solomon discloses “wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
store interaction data in a user file for the first user, wherein the interaction data includes queries made by the first user and the one or more responses to the queries generated by the artificial intelligence engine during the first discovery session (a student profile database is stored containing student information such as demographics and credentials useful for tracking and optimizing learning. The student profile database may also contain a complete record of the conversation with the Expert Avatar and other Expert Avatars, including the matched responses given, the suggestions by the Expert Avatar, and the results of questions asked of the student by the Expert Avatar to judge the student's understanding of the responses- paragraph 32);
and upon receiving, from the first user, a subsequent request to initiate a next discovery session in the exploration space at a time after the first discovery session, retrieve information from the interaction data in the user file for the first user and use the retrieved information from the interaction data during the next discovery session” (the student profile database would be permanently stored so that the information on a student's prior knowledge and learning profile is retained from session to session and avatar to avatar to allow the Learning Manager to optimize the learning experience for each student. For example, if the grade level of responses has been raised for one Expert Avatar, it would remain raised for subsequent avatars- paragraph 60; Based on the student's progress the learning manager may provide suggestions or recommendations through the Expert Avatar of additional queries that the student should make or on topics that the student might like to know about, provide guidance if the student is off topic, increase or decrease the complexity (grade level) of Expert Avatar responses and instruct the Expert Avatar to test the student's understanding of responses previously provided. Continued lack of performance exhibited by the student can result in a simplification of responses and a suggestion from the Expert Avatar to repeat problem area queries. On the other hand, rapid acquisition of the desired learning goals can result in increasing the complexity of responses- paragraph 20).
Claim 2 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Regarding claim 14, Solomon discloses “wherein the GUI rendering module displays the one or more responses generated by the artificial intelligence engine during the first discovery session in a response area in the exploration space” (responses to queries spoken or otherwise asked by the student are delivered verbally, visually, or otherwise by the Expert Avatar. For example, visual communication could be text, gestures, graphics, videos, or sign language- paragraph 34).
Claim 4 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 14 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Regarding claim 15, Solomon discloses “wherein the one or more responses include a response and a detailed answer displayed in the response area” (The Expert Avatar provides responses by matching a student's question to a database of anticipated queries with pre-scripted responses. Responses will also include graphics or videos to further improve the student's understanding of the Expert Avatar's responses- paragraph 16).
Claim 5 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 15 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
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.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Graesser et al. (US 20130029308) (“Graesser”).
Regarding claim 13, Solomon discloses “a progress indicator for the first user; and wherein the retrieved information from the interaction data used during the next discovery session is shown in the progress indicator for the first user” (An important innovation of the invention are the learning manager functions which compare the conversation log to the learning goals (that are also included in the primary knowledge base) to create a formative assessment of the student's progress, which is then stored in the student profile database for access by the teacher and student. -Solomon, paragraph 20). Solomon does not disclose that the exploration space includes said progress indicator. However, Graesser discloses an exploration space including a progress indicator (see Graesser Fig. 1 element 108 “coverage feedback bar” and paragraph 36 “the feedback coverage bar 108, which depicts how close the user is to completing a problem”). Graesser and the instant application relate to a computer-implemented method/system for teaching a topic to a user and are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solomon with Graesser to include the progress indicator within the exploration space to allow the user to track their progress easier without having to access a separate interface.
Claim 3 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 13 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon as applied to claim 5 and 15 above, and further in view of Otsuka et al. (US 20210049210) (“Otsuka”).
Regarding claim 16, Solomon does not explicitly disclose the further limitations of the claim. However, Otsuka discloses “wherein the GUI rendering module displays a plurality of potentially relevant responses to the query from the first user around the response area” (The query sending unit 212 sends the user query accepted by the input unit 100 to each of the information provision module units 220. -Otsuka, paragraph 68; The answer acquiring unit 213 acquires one or more answer candidates and an answer score from each one of the multiple information provision module units 220, and passes the answer candidates and answer scores to the output control unit 214. The output control unit 214 selects agents for display by the display unit 300 based on the answer candidates and answer scores it acquired. -Otsuka, paragraphs 132-133). Otsuka and the instant application both relate to the use of artificial intelligence to respond to user queries and are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Otsuka to Solomon to provide the user with multiple relevant responses rather than just one, to give the user more options in the event that the first answer is incorrect or irrelevant to the user.
Claim 6 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 16 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Regarding claim 17, Solomon, as modified by Otsuka, discloses “wherein the plurality of potentially relevant responses are displayed around the response area in an order based on a relevancy score of each potentially relevant response to the query from the first user” (the output control unit 214 determines the order of agents to be displayed by the display unit 300 such that agents for which the relevance score (q, D.sub.i) calculated according to Expression (1) is higher are ranked high. -Otsuka, paragraph 141). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Otsuka to Solomon and order the responses by relevance to make it clear to the user which responses of the plurality of responses are most relevant to the query, increasing user satisfaction (By ranking the answer candidates based on such display rules according to the user query from the user, the user's satisfaction can be increased -Otsuka, paragraph 159).
Claim 7 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 17 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon in view of Otsuka as applied to claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2018080169) (“Kim”).
Regarding claim 18, neither Solomon nor Otsuka appear to disclose explicitly the further limitations of the claim. However, Kim discloses “wherein the GUI rendering module rearranges the response and the detailed answer displayed in the response area and the plurality of potentially relevant responses around the response area in response to a selection of one of the plurality of potentially relevant responses by the first user” (user may perform a touch 25-2 (eg, a “weak force touch” or “strong force touch”) on a function object 2510 (eg, a search key) included in screen 2502. In response to the touch 25-2, the electronic device may rearrange the search results of the input query (eg, “hotel”) and display them on the display. For example, the screen 2502 is arranged in the "GOOGLE MAPS" category, the "TURBOSCAN" category, and the "TOP HITS" category, but the electronic device responds to the touch 25-2, as shown in the screen 2503. The category list can be constructed in the order of the "TURBOSCAN" category, the "TOP HITS" category, and the "GOOGLE MAPS" category. -Kim, paragraph 359). Kim and the instant application both relate to providing responses to user queries and are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combination of Solomon and Otsuka to implement reordering of the plurality of potentially responses in response to a selection by the user, as disclosed by Kim, for the purpose of displaying the user’s selection more prominently, making it more easily accessible and increasing user satisfaction.
Claim 8 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 18 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Hatami-Hanza (US 20110218960).
Regarding claim 19, Solomon does not explicitly disclose the further limitations. However, Hatami-Hanza discloses “wherein the data collection in the exploration space database for the exploration space includes a plurality of subjects, with each subject being associated with a plurality of data blocks that relate to that subject; and wherein the one or more responses generated by the artificial intelligence engine during the first discovery session are generated using at least one data block of a subject of the plurality of subjects that has a relevancy score over a predetermined threshold value to the query from the first user” (See Hatami-Hanza Fig.1: “get users’ request for information from the body of knowledge” -> “Querying the system to get the partitions, evaluate the VSMS, provide the candidate answers with predetermined VSMs” -> “Select and edit the candidate partitions with predetermined level of VSM and compose the desired answer to the user” -> “Send to client/s”; note that “body of knowledge” is the plurality of subjects, “partitions” is the plurality of data blocks that relate to the subject, and the “VSMs (value significance measures)” are the relevancy scores). Hatami-Hanza and the instant application both relate to providing responses to user queries about a particular subject matter and are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Solomon with Hatami-Hanza to improve the efficiency of querying the database by organizing the database into partitions, resulting in finding relevant responses to the user’s query faster.
Claim 9 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 19 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Regarding claim 20, Solomon as modified by Hatami-Hanza discloses “a knowledge portal for the interactive knowledge exploration system, wherein the knowledge portal communicates with the user interface to allow the plurality of users to find exploration spaces having data collections stored in the exploration space database of the interactive knowledge exploration system” (in one exemplary embodiment, the user only provide a keyword and asking about the most credible fact or statement related to the keyword or the query and the system and method of the present invention will start an interactive searching or knowledge discovery session. The system will assemble a body of knowledge, using either its own databases or other search engines or any other means, related to the user's query or subject matter -Hatami-Hanza, paragraph 17; the examiner is interpreting “knowledge portal” to be any user interface allowing the user to access exploration spaces). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Solomon with Hatami-Hanza to provide an interface for users to easily find exploration spaces associated with subject matter they are interested in learning about.
Claim 10 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 20 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11783000 (“reference patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 is anticipated by reference claim 3 and instant claim 11 is anticipated by reference claim 13.
Regarding instant claim 1, reference claim 1 inherited by reference claim 3 recites the limitation “providing a subject matter guide interface in communication with the interactive knowledge exploration system” while instant claim 1 recites “providing a user interface that allows a user of the plurality of users to interact with the exploration space.” Since a “subject matter guide interface” is a user interface under broadest reasonable interpretation (the subject matter guide being a type of user), and the interface being “in communication with the interactive knowledge exploration system” implies that the user is able to “interact with the exploration space”, the reference limitation anticipates the instant limitation. The remainder of the limitations in instant claim 1 have identical counterparts in reference claim 3. A claim chart follows with the corresponding limitations in bold.
Instant Application
Reference Patent (11783000)
1. A method of providing an interactive knowledge exploration system for a plurality of users, the method comprising: generating an exploration space using information from a data collection associated with the exploration space stored in an exploration space database of the interactive knowledge exploration system; providing a user interface that allows a user of the plurality of users to interact with the exploration space; and engaging in a first discovery session in the exploration space with a first user of the plurality of users, wherein an artificial intelligence engine uses the data collection associated with the exploration space stored in the exploration space database to generate one or more responses to a query from the first user during the first discovery session.
1. A method of generating an exploration space for a plurality of users of an interactive knowledge exploration system, the method comprising: providing a subject matter guide interface in communication with the interactive knowledge exploration system; receiving data from a subject matter guide for a data collection associated with a first exploration space, wherein the received data from the subject matter guide for the data collection is submitted through the subject matter guide interface; processing the received data and parsing the received data into a plurality of proposed subjects for the first exploration space, each proposed subject of the plurality of proposed subjects being associated with a plurality of data blocks associated with the proposed subject; receiving edits to one or more of the proposed subjects of the plurality of proposed subjects, including edits to one or more groupings of data blocks of the plurality of data blocks for the plurality of proposed subjects; publishing the first exploration space to make the first exploration space available to the plurality of users of the interactive knowledge exploration system; wherein the subject matter guide interface includes a test option; and wherein the test option allows the subject matter guide to generate a test discovery session in the first exploration space.
2. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: generating the first exploration space using information from the data collection associated with the first exploration space stored in an exploration space database of the interactive knowledge exploration system.
3. The method according to claim 2, further comprising: engaging in a first discovery session in the first exploration space with a first user of the plurality of users, wherein an artificial intelligence engine of the interactive knowledge exploration system uses the data collection associated with the first exploration space stored in the exploration space database to generate one or more responses to a query from the first user during the first discovery session.
Regarding instant claim 11, reference claim 11 inherited by reference claim 13 recites the limitation “a subject matter guide interface allowing communication with a subject matter guide” while instant claim 11 recites “a communication interface allowing communication with one or more users of a plurality of users.” Since a “subject matter guide interface allowing communication” is a communication interface under broadest reasonable interpretation, and “a subject matter guide” is “one or more users of a plurality of users,” the reference limitation anticipates the instant limitation. The remainder of the limitations in instant claim 11 have identical counterparts in reference claim 13. A claim chart follows with the corresponding limitations in bold.
Instant Application
Reference Patent (11783000)
11. An interactive knowledge exploration system, the system comprising: a communication interface allowing communication with one or more users of a plurality of users; an exploration space database including a data collection associated with at least one exploration space; a graphic user interface (GUI) rendering module rendering and generating an exploration space from the data collection for the exploration space in the exploration space database; an artificial intelligence engine in communication with the communication interface, the exploration space database, and the GUI rendering module, the artificial intelligence engine including at least one processor, a memory, and storage for computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processer, cause the at least one processor to: engage in a first discovery session in the exploration space with a first user of the plurality of users; and generate one or more responses to a query from the first user during the first discovery session using the data collection associated with the exploration space stored in the exploration space database.
11. An interactive knowledge exploration system, the system comprising: an exploration space database including a data collection associated with at least one exploration space; a subject matter guide interface allowing communication with a subject matter guide having a data collection stored in the exploration space database; a graphic user interface (GUI) rendering module rendering and generating an exploration space from the data collection for the exploration space in the exploration space database; an artificial intelligence engine in communication with the exploration space database, the subject matter guide interface, and the GUI rendering module, the artificial intelligence engine including at least one processor, a memory, and storage for computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processer, cause the at least one processor to: receive data from a subject matter guide for a data collection associated with a first exploration space, wherein the received data from the subject matter guide for the data collection is submitted through the subject matter guide interface; process the received data and parse the received data into a plurality of proposed subjects for the first exploration space, each proposed subject of the plurality of proposed subjects being associated with a plurality of data blocks associated with the proposed subject; receive edits to one or more of the proposed subjects of the plurality of proposed subjects, including edits to one or more groupings of data blocks of the plurality of data blocks for the plurality of proposed subjects; and publish the first exploration space to make the first exploration space available to a plurality of users of the interactive knowledge exploration system; wherein the subject matter guide interface includes a test option; and wherein the test option allows the subject matter guide to generate a test discovery session in the first exploration space.
12. The system according to claim 11, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: generate the first exploration space using information from the data collection associated with the first exploration space stored in an exploration space database.
13. The system according to claim 12, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: engage in a first discovery session in the first exploration space with a first user of the plurality of users, wherein the artificial intelligence engine of the interactive knowledge exploration system uses the data collection associated with the first exploration space stored in the exploration space database to generate one or more responses to a query from the first user during the first discovery session.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11977596 (“reference patent”) in further view of Solomon. Reference claim 1 recites all of the limitations of instant claim 1 except for “providing a user interface that allows a user of the plurality of users to interact with the exploration space” and an artificial intelligence engine that performs the “generating responses” step. Solomon discloses a use