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 .
Claim Status
In response to communications filed on 19 May 2026, claims 1-20 are presently pending in the application, of which, claims 1, 10 and 19 are presented in independent form. The Examiner acknowledges amended claims 1, 10, and 19. No claims were cancelled or newly added.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 17 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
All objections and/or rejections issued in the previous Office Action, mailed 19 May 2026, have been withdrawn, unless otherwise noted in this Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are but are not deemed persuasive. Applicant’s arguments and amendments are incorporated into the rejection below.
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 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.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Verma, Near (U.S. 7,801,885 and known hereinafter as Verma) in view of Gargalhone, Andre, et al (U.S. 2015/0234822 and known hereinafter as Gargalhone).
As per claim 1, Verma teaches a computer-implemented method for processing a natural language query, the method comprising:
preparing a first table summary of the data table (e.g. Verma, see column 7, lines 40-50, which discloses the server may create and manage databases and data tables that store data used by the system.) based on the query term (e.g. Verma, see column 5, lines 29-45, which discloses the search engine system provides the query to the other system and receives the search results from the other system, where the system includes a user feedback database that includes a user feedback search table.);
generating a first formula, executable on the data table (e.g. Verma, see column 7, lines 40-50, which discloses the server may create and manage databases and data tables that store data used by the system.), of the natural language query based on the first table summary (e.g. Verma, see column 6, lines 12-25, which discloses a set of user feedback search results are generated using the query and a set of regular search results are generated using the query.);
generating a result based on the first formula (e.g. Verma, see column 6, lines 25-50, which discloses user feedback search results are displayed according to the user feedback data and regular search results are displayed, where the user feedback search results may be displayed separately from, or intermixed with the regular search results.);
responsive to receiving input indicative of a negative feedback to the result (e.g. Verma, column 24, line 50 to column 26, line 5, which discloses user personalization data indicates that ranking of a particular search results needs to decrease, where the user provides a negative feedback which changes the ranking of particular results.), automatically processing the negative feedback by disassociating one or more of the first table summary or the first formula with the query term (e.g. Verma, column 24, line 50 to column 26, line 5, which discloses user personalized data is stored in a user search mapping table that includes particular search results related to the feedback, where the table is updated based on a particular feedback, where when the table is updated, the negative feedback disassociates from the table summary associated with the query term..), wherein the disassociating causes a generation of a second table summary in response to subsequently receiving the query term (e.g. Verma, column 24, line 50 to column 26, line 5, which discloses user personalized data is stored in a user search mapping table that includes particular search results related to the feedback, where the table is updated based on a particular feedback. Additionally, in the aggregated feedback, the negative feedback is factored into the subsequent query results and also associated with the query.).
The modified teachings of Verma do not explicitly disclose obtaining a natural language query originated by a user; providing an alternative interpretation of the natural language query based on the new table summary.
Gargalhone teaches obtaining a natural language query originated by a user (e.g. Gargalhone, see paragraph [0009], which discloses a user enters a natural language text string, which is presented on the display of an electronic device as a set of potential query words.);
generating a second formula, executable on the data table, of the natural language query based on the second table summary (e.g. Gargalhone, see paragraph [0027], which discloses presenting natural language text query string containing all the words that are ready for selection by a user and then a potential supplemental query words (e.g. second formula) are identified based on there having been previously identified by the other users as to the relevant query words.);
providing, based on the second formula (e.g. Gargalone, see paragraphs [0024-0027], Figures 4A-C, which discloses a user inters a natural language text query string into a text entry box, when the user submits the information, the user is presented with the potential query words of the input text string, each separated from adjacent potential query words by spacing distance, where when the user selects several potential query words as being relevant query words, then the user is able to join adjacent query words to create a relative search term. The Examiner notes that each potential query word selected by the user generates a new query formula that returns refined results to the user.), an alternative interpretation of the natural language query (Gargalhone, see Figures 3, 5, and 6A-6E, and paragraphs [0027-0031], which discloses an original natural language query is provided, such as ‘Chevrolet sport coupe car’ and an alternative interpretation or suggestion is provided, such as ‘new automatic red excellent condition.’.
Verma is directed to search engine system with user feedback on search results. Gargalhone is directed to query method to identify relevant interests using modified natural language. All are analogous art because they manipulate query terms and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Verma with the further teachings of Gargalone to include the claimed features with the motivation to improve the natural language query process.
As per claim 10, Verma teaches a system for processing a natural language query, the system comprising:
a communication interface configured to:
preparing a first table summary of the data table (e.g. Verma, see column 7, lines 40-50, which discloses the server may create and manage databases and data tables that store data used by the system.) based on the query term (e.g. Verma, see column 5, lines 29-45, which discloses the search engine system provides the query to the other system and receives the search results from the other system, where the system includes a user feedback database that includes a user feedback search table.);
generating a first formula, executable on the data table (e.g. Verma, see column 7, lines 40-50, which discloses the server may create and manage databases and data tables that store data used by the system.), of the natural language query based on the first table summary (e.g. Verma, see column 6, lines 12-25, which discloses a set of user feedback search results are generated using the query and a set of regular search results are generated using the query.);
generating a result based on the first formula (e.g. Verma, see column 6, lines 25-50, which discloses user feedback search results are displayed according to the user feedback data and regular search results are displayed, where the user feedback search results may be displayed separately from, or intermixed with the regular search results.);
responsive to receiving input indicative of a negative feedback to the result (e.g. Verma, column 24, line 50 to column 26, line 5, which discloses user personalization data indicates that ranking of a particular search results needs to decrease, where the user provides a negative feedback which changes the ranking of particular results.), automatically processing the negative feedback by disassociating one or more of the first table summary or the first formula with the query term (e.g. Verma, column 24, line 50 to column 26, line 5, which discloses user personalized data is stored in a user search mapping table that includes particular search results related to the feedback, where the table is updated based on a particular feedback, where when the table is updated, the negative feedback disassociates from the table summary associated with the query term..), wherein the disassociating causes a generation of a second table summary in response to subsequently receiving the query term (e.g. Verma, column 24, line 50 to column 26, line 5, which discloses user personalized data is stored in a user search mapping table that includes particular search results related to the feedback, where the table is updated based on a particular feedback. Additionally, in the aggregated feedback, the negative feedback is factored into the subsequent query results and also associated with the query.).
The modified teachings of Verma do not explicitly disclose obtaining a natural language query originated by a user; providing an alternative interpretation of the natural language query based on the new table summary.
Gargalhone teaches obtaining a natural language query originated by a user (e.g. Gargalhone, see paragraph [0009], which discloses a user enters a natural language text string, which is presented on the display of an electronic device as a set of potential query words.);
generating a second formula, executable on the data table, of the natural language query based on the second table summary (e.g. Gargalhone, see paragraph [0027], which discloses presenting natural language text query string containing all the words that are ready for selection by a user and then a potential supplemental query words (e.g. second formula) are identified based on there having been previously identified by the other users as to the relevant query words.);
providing, based on the second formula (e.g. Gargalone, see paragraphs [0024-0027], Figures 4A-C, which discloses a user inters a natural language text query string into a text entry box, when the user submits the information, the user is presented with the potential query words of the input text string, each separated from adjacent potential query words by spacing distance, where when the user selects several potential query words as being relevant query words, then the user is able to join adjacent query words to create a relative search term. The Examiner notes that each potential query word selected by the user generates a new query formula that returns refined results to the user.), an alternative interpretation of the natural language query (Gargalhone, see Figures 3, 5, and 6A-6E, and paragraphs [0027-0031], which discloses an original natural language query is provided, such as ‘Chevrolet sport coupe car’ and an alternative interpretation or suggestion is provided, such as ‘new automatic red excellent condition.’.
Verma is directed to search engine system with user feedback on search results. Gargalhone is directed to query method to identify relevant interests using modified natural language. All are analogous art because they manipulate query terms and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Verma with the further teachings of Gargalone to include the claimed features with the motivation to improve the natural language query process.
As per claim 20, Verma teaches a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing processor-executable instructions for a processor, the instructions comprises:
preparing a first table summary of the data table (e.g. Verma, see column 7, lines 40-50, which discloses the server may create and manage databases and data tables that store data used by the system.) based on the query term (e.g. Verma, see column 5, lines 29-45, which discloses the search engine system provides the query to the other system and receives the search results from the other system, where the system includes a user feedback database that includes a user feedback search table.);
generating a first formula, executable on the data table (e.g. Verma, see column 7, lines 40-50, which discloses the server may create and manage databases and data tables that store data used by the system.), of the natural language query based on the first table summary (e.g. Verma, see column 6, lines 12-25, which discloses a set of user feedback search results are generated using the query and a set of regular search results are generated using the query.);
generating a result based on the first formula (e.g. Verma, see column 6, lines 25-50, which discloses user feedback search results are displayed according to the user feedback data and regular search results are displayed, where the user feedback search results may be displayed separately from, or intermixed with the regular search results.);
responsive to receiving input indicative of a negative feedback to the result (e.g. Verma, column 24, line 50 to column 26, line 5, which discloses user personalization data indicates that ranking of a particular search results needs to decrease, where the user provides a negative feedback which changes the ranking of particular results.), automatically processing the negative feedback by disassociating one or more of the first table summary or the first formula with the query term (e.g. Verma, column 24, line 50 to column 26, line 5, which discloses user personalized data is stored in a user search mapping table that includes particular search results related to the feedback, where the table is updated based on a particular feedback, where when the table is updated, the negative feedback disassociates from the table summary associated with the query term..), wherein the disassociating causes a generation of a second table summary in response to subsequently receiving the query term (e.g. Verma, column 24, line 50 to column 26, line 5, which discloses user personalized data is stored in a user search mapping table that includes particular search results related to the feedback, where the table is updated based on a particular feedback. Additionally, in the aggregated feedback, the negative feedback is factored into the subsequent query results and also associated with the query.).
The modified teachings of Verma do not explicitly disclose obtaining a natural language query originated by a user; providing an alternative interpretation of the natural language query based on the new table summary.
Gargalhone teaches obtaining a natural language query originated by a user (e.g. Gargalhone, see paragraph [0009], which discloses a user enters a natural language text string, which is presented on the display of an electronic device as a set of potential query words.);
generating a second formula, executable on the data table, of the natural language query based on the second table summary (e.g. Gargalhone, see paragraph [0027], which discloses presenting natural language text query string containing all the words that are ready for selection by a user and then a potential supplemental query words (e.g. second formula) are identified based on there having been previously identified by the other users as to the relevant query words.);
providing, based on the second formula (e.g. Gargalone, see paragraphs [0024-0027], Figures 4A-C, which discloses a user inters a natural language text query string into a text entry box, when the user submits the information, the user is presented with the potential query words of the input text string, each separated from adjacent potential query words by spacing distance, where when the user selects several potential query words as being relevant query words, then the user is able to join adjacent query words to create a relative search term. The Examiner notes that each potential query word selected by the user generates a new query formula that returns refined results to the user.), an alternative interpretation of the natural language query (Gargalhone, see Figures 3, 5, and 6A-6E, and paragraphs [0027-0031], which discloses an original natural language query is provided, such as ‘Chevrolet sport coupe car’ and an alternative interpretation or suggestion is provided, such as ‘new automatic red excellent condition.’.
Verma is directed to search engine system with user feedback on search results. Gargalhone is directed to query method to identify relevant interests using modified natural language. All are analogous art because they manipulate query terms and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Verma with the further teachings of Gargalone to include the claimed features with the motivation to improve the natural language query process.
As per claims 2 and 11, the modified teachings of Verma, and Gargalhone teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 10, respectively, wherein the natural language query is submitted by the user via a user interface at a client device (e.g. Gargalhone, see Figures 4A-4C, which illustrates a web interface that includes the ability to receive a search query from a user’s computer.).
As per claims 3 and 12, the modified teachings of Verma, and Gargalhone teaches the method of claim 2 and the system of claim 11, respectively, wherein the natural language query is manually or vocally entered by the user (e.g. Gargalhone, see Figures 4A-4C, which illustrates a web interface that includes the ability to receive a search query from a user’s computer.).
As per claims 4 and 13, the modified teachings of Verma, and Gargalhone teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 10, respectively, wherein the natural language query is received at a server from a client device via a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) post request (e.g. Gargalhone, see Figure 1, paragraph [0019], which illustrates a web interface that includes the ability to receive a search query from a user’s computer. The Examiner notes the user of a web interface inherently includes the use of HTTP requests.).
As per claims 5 and 14, the modified teachings of Verma, and Gargalhone teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 10, respectively, wherein the natural language query is originated in a first language and is then translated into a second language (e.g. Gargalhone, see paragraphs [0025-0036], which discloses the language selector process selects a language to translate a query into.).
As per claims 6 and 15, the modified teachings of Verma, and Gargalhone teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 10, respectively, wherein the result is presented to the user via a visualization format including any of an answer statement, a chart, or a data plot (e.g. Verma, see Figures 1B and 2, include a visual media search results.).
As per claims 7 and 16, the modified teachings of Verma, and Gargalhone teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 10, respectively, further comprising:
storing the first formula associated with the natural language query or the query term when the user feedback is positive (e.g. Gargalhone, see paragraphs [0025-0036] where the user search histories may be stored when the user provides feedback.).
As per claims 9 and 18, the modified teachings of Verma, Verma, and Gargalhone teaches the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 10, respectively, wherein the result is translated into a respective language when the natural language query is received in the respective language from the user (e.g. Verma see paragraphs [0025-0036], which discloses the language selector process selects a language to translate a query into.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892 that includes additional prior art of record describing the general state of the art in which the invention is directed to.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FARHAN M SYED whose telephone number is (571)272-7191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571-272-4080. 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.
/FARHAN M SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161 July 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights