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
Applicant’s Response, filed 04/14/2026, amended claims 1-20. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under §§ 101 & 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejections under §§ 101 & 102(a)(1) have been withdrawn.
Although many of the claim rejections under § 112(b) have been overcome through amendments, the remaining ones are combined with new rejections set forth under § 112(b).
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive and is objected to. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested:
Examiner Remarks
The examiner notes that for this continuation application, originally presented claims 1-20 are all directed to user interactions with information presented to that user. Further, it appears that all of the written description support for originally presented claims 1-20 is located in Specification paragraph [0051], which is reproduced below for convenience.
[0059] The system and methods can further include one or more mechanisms to track the Specific Solution Prompts presented to the user and track user interactions with each of Specific Solution Prompts, which includes but is not limited to review, time spent reviewing before moving on to the next Solution Prompt, number of new solution candidates created after review before moving on the next Solution Prompt. The system allows the user to go back and forth on already presented Specific Solution Prompts and learns the presentation rate and the probability of success for each type or class of Inventive Principles, heuristic, separation techniques, or Standard solutions underlying the generic Solution Prompt from which the respective Specific Solution Prompt was constructed, and adjusts the prioritization strategy as the user proceeds. For example, the scores of certain Specific Solution Prompts will be reduced dynamically if the user keeps ignoring the class of generic Solution Prompt from which the respective Specific Solution Prompt was constructed even though their initial scores could be high. Certain types of Solutions that are not presented initially, after some time will be given a chance to be presented to the user. This tracking and learning mechanism can work across the boundaries of queries and users, which ends up building a concept/principle relationship network database, adding that this network when taking into account probabilities may be termed a probabilities relationship network. The probabilities relationship. The probabilities relationship network not only links concepts to generic Solution Prompts, principles, heuristics, techniques or standard solutions with probabilities, but also includes the interactions among the principles/techniques/solutions coupled with specific concepts. For example, one type of concept/principle couple often leads to another concept/principle couple. This knowledge learned from user interactions can be applied to other users with similar context.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) - Indefiniteness
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 1-20 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite as identified below. They are replete with inconsistent terminology, antecedent basis issues, and in general do not permit one of ordinary skill in the art to understand what the metes and bounds of the presented claims are. Prior art has been applied to the limited extent that the claims in their current form permit.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites:
“A system implemented on a computer comprising:
at least one processor;
at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer capable of communicating via an electronic communications network, the system further configured to store instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to receive, via a graphical user interface, a query describing a technical problem, a proposed solution, or a desired result”.
The above limitations do not provide antecedent basis for the computer possessing hardware or structure to perform the recited communications, nor are the limitations recited in positive language. The examiner suggests the following amendments to overcome this portion of the rejection:
“A system
at least one processor; and
at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage mediumstoring instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
receive, via a graphical user interface, a query describing a technical problem, a proposed solution, or a desired result”.
Claim 1 recites “generate a plurality of specific solution prompts . . . using a morphological analysis process, wherein;”.
The semicolon after “wherein” should be changed to a colon
Claims 2-10 depend on independent claim 1 and are rejected at least for their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites “The system of claim 1, wherein a neural-network based semantic analysis of at least one or more the technical problem analyzed by the computer is presented as a query . . .”.
For antecedent basis and minor grammatical edits for consistency, the examiner suggests the following amendments:
“The system of claim 1, further comprising presenting a neural-network based semantic analysis of at least one or more the technical problem
Claim 2 recites “identify the most relevant knowledge elements”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites “the presentation rate” and “the probability of success for solution prompt types”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Further, it is unclear how these are related to the rest of the claims, particularly because there has never been an introduction of solution prompts having types, and what those types might be.
Claim 3 recites “wherein user interaction calculations include”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because user interaction calculations have not been introduced previously.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites “wherein the solution prompts”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It appears this should refer instead to “the specific solution prompts”, as introduced in claim 1.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites “enables”. This must be rewritten to avoid optional language and positively recite a limitation.
Claim 6 recites “previously presented prompts”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It appears this should refer instead to “the specific solution prompts”, as introduced in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “said solution prompts”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It appears this should refer instead to “the specific solution prompts”, as introduced in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “the network”. It is unclear which network is being referred to here, although it appears likely to be the “probabilities relationship network” which was built and updated in claim 1. However, a “neural network” was also previously introduced.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites “the scores”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It appears this should recite “the relevance scores”, as introduced in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “solution prompts”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It appears this should refer instead to “specific solution prompts”, as introduced in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “the class of solution prompt”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites “the scores”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It appears this should recite “the relevance scores”, as introduced in claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “solution prompts”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It appears this should refer instead to “specific solution prompts”, as introduced in claim 1.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites “solution prompts”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It appears this should refer instead to “specific solution prompts”, as introduced in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “wherein multiple users and queries are tracked . . .”. As this is a new operation, claim 9 should be amended to recite “further comprising tracking
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites “wherein knowledge learned from user interactions is applied . . . ”. As this is a new operation, claim 10 should be amended to recite “further comprising applying
Claims 11-20
Claims 11-20 recite limitations that correspond to claims 1-10, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 12-20
Claims 12-20 recite additional operations beyond those introduced in method claim 11, upon which those claims depend. Each of claims 12-20 should be amended to begin with “further comprising” instead of “comprising” or “wherein the method”.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites “solution prompts”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It appears this should refer instead to “specific solution prompts”, as introduced in claim 1.
Claims 12-20 depend on independent claim 11 and are rejected at least for their dependency on claim 11.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites “enables”. This must be rewritten to avoid optional language and positively recite a limitation.
Claim 18
The term “a better chance” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a better chance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) – Failure to Further Limit Claim
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 11 recites “A method implemented on the system of claim 1, including; tracking . . .; and the tracking . . .; and adjusting . . .”.
Several things present themselves here. First, claims 11-20 switch statutory class (method) from the claim they depend on (claim 1’s system). Although this is not necessarily a problem on its own, in this instance it confuses what is recited. Second, the limitations in the body of claim 11 are introduced with “including;”, which appears to be a typographical error because it should be a colon. The additional limitations recited beyond claim 1 should be introduced with “further comprising”.
The examiner recommends avoiding the issues with the present language by instead rewriting claim 11 as an independent method claim. This would mean reciting the limitations of claim 1, and then including the current body limitations of claim 11.
Claims 12-20 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 11.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) & 112(d) set forth in this Office action.
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 Scott A. Waldron whose telephone number is (571)272-5898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/Scott A. Waldron/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
Prosecution Insights