Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on October 02, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 10, 17 have been amended. Claims 1-5, 7-21 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C 103
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-5, 7-21 under U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However upon further consideration and in light of Applicant’s amendments, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Li (U.S Pub # 20080147637).
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 1-3, 7-11, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi (U.S Pub # 20240210194) in view of Li (U.S Pub # 20080147637) and in further view of Manavoglu (U.S Pub # 20080154858).
With regards to claim 1, Sharifi discloses a system comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising:
receiving a query ([0025] search query to initiate a navigation session);
generating an initial set of query results ([0025] search results responsive to search query);
providing the query and initial set of query results to a machine learning model ([0094] a large language model (LLM) may generate an audio request for refining the set of navigation search results);
executing the at least one additional query ([0095] receive a refined search query to generate one or more refined navigation search results);
providing the results from the at least one additional query to machine learning model, the results being from one or more underlying data sources ([0102] providing the one or more refined search results responsive to the refined search query to a large language model);
receiving a summary of semantic search engine results generated by the machine learning model ([0117] generating, by the one or more processors executing a large language model (LLM), a textual summary for each route of the subset of the plurality of routes).
Sharifi does not disclose however Li discloses:
receive at least one additional query from the machine learning model ([0028] a query suggestion server for generating query suggestions. [0019] a machine learning mechanism is introduced to a search mechanism that also comprises a query suggestion server. A machine learning mechanism is also used to determine whether the original should be rewritten);
receiving a summary of semantic search engine results from the machine learning model that synthesizes information from the initial set of query results and the results from the at least one additional query ([0078] in another embodiment, a blending of original query result and second query results are sent to the user).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Sharifi by the system of Li to generate additional queries and sent an aggregated search result of different queries to a user.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to help locate resources that are accessible through the internet (Li [0003]).
Sharifi does not disclose however Manavoglu discloses:
wherein the summary of the semantic search engine results includes one or more citation links to the one or more underlying data sources for the results from the at least one additional query (Fig. 6 # 652, 654 [0071] clickable link that may reference a site. URL 653 may represent the URL of the site referred to by the clickable link); and
wherein a first section of the summary includes at least one citation link that is generated by the machine learning model and identifies a first underlying data source for a corresponding semantic search engine result ([0071] description 656 may be used in the machine learning document categorization of the site referred to by the link 652, or the machine learning document categorization may analyze the entire content of the site referenced by the link 652),
wherein the at least one citation link enables redirection to the first underlying data source for the corresponding semantic search engine result derived from the at least one query ([0071] If one the users 120A-N, such as the user A 120A, clicks on the link 652, the user A 120A may be forwarded to the site referred to by the link);
providing the summary of the semantic search engine results including the one or more citation links (Fig. 6 [0071] search result summary).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Sharifi and Li by the system of Manavoglu to generate citation links in a search result summary.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to target data on a site referenced on a page based on a condition (Manavoglu [0004]).
Claims 10 and 17 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 2, Sharifi further discloses:
generate one or more alternate queries based upon the query, and wherein generating the initial set of query results comprised generating alternate query results based upon the one or more additional queries ([0056] provide additional questions for clarification based on initial query).
Claim 21 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 3, Sharifi further discloses:
wherein the machine learning model is a generative large language model, and wherein the summary is generated by the generative large language model ([0117] textual summary for each route).
Claims 15, 16 and 20 correspond to claim 3 and are rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 7, Sharifi further discloses:
determining an intent or a task based upon the received query, wherein the intent or the task is provided to the machine learning model ([0063] determine intent).
With regards to claim 8, Sharifi further discloses:
determine, using the machine learning model, whether additional information is required, wherein the determination is based upon the intent or task ([0065] determine whether or not to generate an audio request for further information based on intent).
With regards to claim 9, Sharifi further discloses:
wherein the at least one additional query is generated by the generative large language model when it is determined that an additional information is required ([0065] determine whether or not to generate an audio request for further information based on intent).
With regards to claim 11, Sharifi further discloses:
analyzing the query to determine an intent or a task based upon the query, wherein analyzing the query comprises providing the query to at least one of the machine learning model or an alternate machine learning model ([0063] determine user intent).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi (U.S Pub # 20240210194) in view of Li (U.S Pub # 20080147637) and in further view of Manavoglu (U.S Pub # 20080154858) and Konam (U.S Pub # 20230223016).
With regards to claim 4, Sharifi does not disclose however Konam discloses:
wherein a format for the summary is determined based upon a type of information included in the summary ([0048] format summary based on identified key terms).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Sharifi, Li and Manavoglu by the system of Konam to format a summary generated by a large language model.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to form a to analyze and output categorized elements among a transcript (Konam [0004]).
With regards to claim 5, Sharifi does not disclose however Konam discloses:
wherein a format for the summary is determined based upon a template provided to the generative large language model ([0055] format based on formatting guidelines).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Sharifi, Li and Li by the system of Konam to format a summary generated by a large language model.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to form a to analyze and output categorized elements among a transcript (Konam [0004]).
Claims 12-14, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi (U.S Pub # 20240210194) in view of Li (U.S Pub # 20080147637) and in further view of Manavoglu (U.S Pub # 20080154858). and Shabat (U.S Pub # 20240203404).
With regards to claim 12, Sharifi does not disclose however Shabat discloses:
determining a format for the semantic search engine results, wherein the format is determined based upon the query or the task (Fig. 2 [0047] format for response based on type of information).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Sharifi, Li and Manavoglu by the system of Shabat to format a response based on received input.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to generate output based on received audio data input (Shabat [0020]).
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 12 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 13, Sharifi does not disclose however Shabat discloses:
generating a prompt for the machine learning model, wherein the prompt is generated based upon the format ([0047] intent can also be used as a template for what the automated assistant has said or will say).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Sharifi, Li and Manavoglu by the system of Shabat to format a response based on received input.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to generate output based on received audio data input (Shabat [0020]).
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 13 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 14, Sharifi does not disclose however Shabat discloses:
a template associated with the format, wherein the template defines the format for the semantic search engine results ([0047] intent can also be used as a template for what the automated assistant has said or will say).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Sharifi, Li and Manavoglu by the system of Shabat to format a response based on received input.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to generate output based on received audio data input (Shabat [0020]).
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 TONY WU whose telephone number is (571)272-2033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571) 272-4098. 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.
/TONY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights