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 . Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
Except as indicated on the form, the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/12/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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
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 “implementable” and “capable”. These terms render the claim indefinite because it cannot be determined if the limitations they modify are intended to be optional or should be given patentable weight in claim interpretation. The examiner suggests amending to positively recite actions that do not use “-able”, “may”, “if”, or “can”.
Claim 1 recites “at least one or more from a group of review, review time, user clicks, and choice of solution candidates”. This language is inconsistent with what is repeated in claims 3, 5 & 6, but each appear to intend the same concepts. The examiner suggests standardizing each of these claims to recite what is more consistent with Specification paragraphs [0024] and [0051]: “at least one or more from a group of review by the user, spent by the user reviewing before moving on to the next solution prompt, and click and choice by the user
Claim 1 recites “the tracking adapted to build a probabilities relationship network between at least one or more of inventive principles, heuristics, separation techniques, and standard solutions at least one or more of sequentially and parallelly”. It is unclear what any of these limitations are related to with the rest of the claim. These are not related to solution prompts or user interactions, which is what the previously introduced tracking was concerned with. Without further expansion on what is going on here, this is isolated from the rest of the claim because there is no described relationship between inventive principles or heuristics to the rest of the limitations.
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 problem statement”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 2 recites “at least one or more of keywords, concepts, and topic descriptions deemed relevant to the technical problem”. It is unclear where these keywords, concepts, and topic descriptions are coming from or what they are related to because they are not previously introduced. It appears they were intended to be adjacent to the query, but the relationship is not immediately apparent and should be clarified.
Claim 2 recites “topic descriptions deemed relevant to the technical problem”. The only other instance of “technical problem” recited in any of the claims is found in claim 1, where it recites the machine “analyze[s] at least one or more of a perceived problem, a technical problem, a proposed solution, and a proposed result.” Neither the perceived problem nor either of the proposed solution or proposed result are ever mentioned again in the claim. This relates back to the indefiniteness concern of claim 1, where it is unclear what is optional in the claims and what is required, because in claim 2 the only limitation selected here is the technical problem.
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 4
Claim 4 recites “the machine generated solution prompts adapted to be used by machine learning for machine generating subsequent solution prompts.” This is grammatically unclear, and it is unclear what the machine is doing here (“machine learning for machine generating”), and how the machine generates subsequent solution prompts. It appears Applicant intends a recursive or iterative operation, and the examiner suggests a review of the specification for appropriately supported language to clarify the claims.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites “the number of new solution candidates . . . “. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
As described in Item 2 of Claim 1 above, there is inconsistent language in the “review, time spent reviewing . . .” limitation of claim 5. The examiner recommends amending claim 5 consistent with amendments made for claim 1.
Claim 6
As described in Item 2 of Claim 1 above, there is inconsistent language in the “review, time spent reviewing . . .” limitation of claim 6. The examiner recommends amending claim 6 consistent with amendments made for claim 1.
Overall, claim 6 appears to be a run-on narrative and grammatically does not make sense. Applicant should clarify what actions are being performed and how those relate to limitations that were previously introduced.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites “the scores” and “the class of solution prompt”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
Claim 7 recites “if”. It is unclear if the limitations modified by this are intended to render the claim optional, and this should be amended to positively recite an action. The examiner suggests amending “if” to instead recite “when”.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites “the scores“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 8 recites “the scores . . . are adapted to be given a better chance to be presented to the user than initially prioritized”. The term “better chance” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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 9
Claim 9 recites “may be”. It is unclear if the limitations modified by this are intended to render the claim optional, and this should be amended to positively recite an action. The examiner suggests amending “may be” to instead recite “are”.
Overall, claim 9 appears to be a run-on narrative and grammatically does not make sense. Applicant should clarify what actions are being performed and how those relate to limitations that were previously introduced.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites “the knowledge“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 10 recites “can”. It is unclear if the limitations modified by this are intended to render the claim optional, and this should be amended to positively recite an action. The examiner suggests amending “can” by simply deleting it.
Overall, claim 9 appears to be a run-on narrative and grammatically does not make sense. Applicant should clarify what actions are being performed and how those relate to limitations that were previously introduced. As an example, how would one apply knowledge to other users? Is this knowledge presented in response to a query from another user that can be retrieved?
Claims 11-20
Claims 11-20 recite limitations that correspond to claims 1-10, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite a system and method (claims 1 & 11). Except as noted above, these claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recites “the machine capable of communicating via an electronic communications network and adapted to analyze at least one or more of a perceived problem, a technical problem, a proposed solution, and a proposed result; and the tracking adapted to build a probabilities relationship network between at least one or more of inventive principles, heuristics, separation techniques, and standard solutions at least one or more of sequentially and parallelly.”
These steps analyze information which has been received and calculates a value based on the received input to produce an output, which is an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping.
Claims 4, 5 & 7-10 recite steps which are further extensions of the identified abstract idea. Claims 11-20 correspond to claims 1-10, respectively.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements includes only generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. These elements are: system, machine, processor, non-transitory computer readable storage media, electronic communications network, neural network, machine learning, and database.
Claim 1 recites “the system further adapted to track a plurality of solution prompts presented to the user and adapted to track user interactions with each of the solution prompts, the interactions from at least one or more from a group of review, review time, user clicks, and choice of solution candidates”, and recites steps which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, such as receiving input, transmitting output, and updating/modifying data.
Claims 2, 3 & 6 recite steps which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, such as receiving input, transmitting output, and updating/modifying data. Claims 11-20 correspond to claims 1-10, respectively.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitations of generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality do not meaningfully limit the claim. Further, the insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and presentation do not meaningfully limit the claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deal (US 2014/0101079 A1, hereinafter “Deal”).
Deal teaches:
1. A system implementable on a machine comprising at least one processor adapted to communicate with at least one non-transitory computer readable storage media,
the machine capable of communicating via an electronic communications network and adapted to analyze at least one or more of a perceived problem, a technical problem, a proposed solution, and a proposed result [Deal, Figure 7];
the system further adapted to track a plurality of solution prompts presented to the user and adapted to track user interactions with each of the solution prompts, the interactions from at least one or more from a group of review, review time, user clicks, and choice of solution candidates [Deal, Figure 8]; and
the tracking adapted to build a probabilities relationship network between at least one or more of inventive principles, heuristics, separation techniques, and standard solutions at least one or more of sequentially and parallelly [Deal, Figure 6].
2. The system of claim 1, wherein a neural-network based semantic analysis of the problem statement is adapted to be presented as a query adapted to provide a mechanism for combining at least one or more of keywords, concepts, and topic descriptions deemed relevant to the technical problem, the system further adapted to provide recommendations for solution prompts leading to specific solutions with the inventive principles, heuristics, separation techniques, and standard solutions [Deal, Figure 3].
3. The system of claim 2, wherein user interaction calculations are adapted to include at least one or more of user review, user review time, user clicks, and choice of solution candidates, and wherein a machine learning system determines the presentation rate and the probability of success for solution prompt types [Deal, Figure 6].
4. The system of claim 3,
wherein the solution prompts are machine generated using at least one or more of inventive principles, heuristics, separation techniques, and standard solutions, wherein the machine generated solution prompts are adapted to adjust how inventive principles, heuristics, separation techniques, and standard solutions are prioritized as the user proceeds with the solution prompts [Deal, Figure 8];
the system further adapted to use a tracking and learning mechanism which links concepts to at least one or more of other solution prompts, inventive principles, heuristics, separation techniques, and standard solutions with probabilities and interactions among the inventive principles, heuristics, separation techniques, and standard solutions coupled with specific related concepts [Deal, Figure 8]; and
the machine generated solution prompts adapted to be used by machine learning for machine generating subsequent solution prompts [Deal, Figure 8].
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the solution prompts presented to the user are tracked to include at least one or more of review, time spent reviewing, user clicks, and the number of new solution candidates created before the user reviews the next solution prompt [Deal, Figure 8].
6. The system of claim 5, wherein the system is adapted for the user to review previously presented solution prompts wherein subsequent reviews are tracked to include at least one or more of review, review time, user clicks, choice of solution candidates, and number of new solution candidates created from which to machine generate further solution prompts using at least one or more of inventive principles, heuristics, separation techniques, and standard solutions underlying the further solution prompts and adjusting from which the respective solution prompts were constructed, and adjusts prioritizing inventive principles, heuristics, separation techniques, and standard solutions as the user proceeds [Deal, Figure 8].
7. The system of claim 6, wherein the scores of one or more solution prompts are reduced if the user reviews for less time the class of solution prompt from which the respective solution prompt was constructed when compared to the time the user reviews other classes of solution prompts [Deal, Figure 8].
8. The system of claim 6, wherein the scores of one or more solution prompts are adapted to be given a better chance to be presented to the user than initially prioritized [Deal, Figure 8].
9. The system of claim 4, wherein multiple users and queries may be tracked to create a probabilities relationship network database that links with probabilities of concepts being relevant for at least one or more of solution prompts, inventive principles, heuristics, separation techniques, and standard solutions [Deal, Figure 8].
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the knowledge learned from user interactions is applied to other users wherein one type of one or more concepts can lead to at least one or more other concepts [Deal, Figure 8].
Claims 11-20 recite limitations corresponding to claims 1-10, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at (571)270-0474. 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 2152 01/10/2026