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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 20-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 7, 15, and 24 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 7, it refers to “the database;” however, “a database” has been defined twice in parent claim 1. Therefore, reference to “the database” is ambiguous and the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Claims 15 and 24 are indefinite for the same reason.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20-22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raju (US 2020/0349178) and further in view of Wu (US 2023/0401337).
Regarding claim 1, Raju teaches: A method comprising:
applying an input to a natural language model (¶ 73, “the captured voice instructions 716 can be distributed to the machine learning server 309 by the front-end server 210, as an input to a trained DNN model 712. The DNN model 712 can include one or more layer for voice recognition 711 and one or more layers for natural language processing (NLP) 713”) to generate a modification action (¶ 97, “a natural language process (NLP) is also performed on the text stream to recognize data to be updated and a target task to be updated”), wherein the modification action includes a command and a database update (¶ 97, “a speech-to-text (STT) process is performed on the voice instructions to convert the voice instructions to a text stream, and a natural language process (NLP) is also performed on the text stream to recognize data to be updated and a target task to be updated”), and wherein the database update is associated with a parameter of a database (¶ 97, “In operation 1005, the data to be updated and a target task to be updated to the mobile device is transmitted over the network for confirmation by a user associated with the mobile device”);
in response to determining that the update condition is satisfied, transmitting the command to a computing system (¶ 27, “in response to successfully authenticating the user, identifying the one or more data entries based on a category associated with the content data categorized according to the predetermined category list; and modifying one or more fields of the identified data entries based on the content data”), and receiving, from the computing system, a value for the parameter (¶ 97, “In operation 1005, the data to be updated and a target task to be updated to the mobile device is transmitted over the network for confirmation by a user associated with the mobile device”); and
updating the parameter of a database based on the value (¶ 97, “In operation 1007, in response to a confirmation received from the mobile device, a database update command is transmitted to the task database system to update one or more fields of the target task based on the data to be updated”).
Raju does not teach; however, Wu discloses: obtaining, from a first user, a first credential and an indication that the modification action is approved (¶ 110, “receiving, from a first user associated with a first set of permissions and a first user group, a request to update one or more configuration settings of the backup database” and “determining that the first user is authorized to update the one or more configuration settings of the backup database in accordance with the first set of permissions associated with the first user”);
subsequent to obtaining the first credential and the indication (¶ 73, “If the first user is authorized to update the one or more configuration settings, the data management system 355 may identify a second user in a second user group that is authorized to approve the request from the first user”), obtaining, from a second user, a second credential and a further input to perform the modification action (¶ 73, “Accordingly, the data management system 355 may transmit an indication of the request to the second user, and may update the configuration settings of the backup database in response to receiving a notification that the second user has approved the request”); and
determining that the first credential satisfies a first permission level associated with the database update and that the second credential satisfies a second permission level associated with the command (¶ 122, “the first set of permissions define actions that the first user can perform on the backup database and resources of the backup database on which the first user can perform the actions. In some examples, the second set of permissions define actions that the second user can approve”);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of obtaining, from a first user, a first credential and an indication that the modification action is approved; subsequent to obtaining the first credential and the indication, obtaining, from a second user, a second credential and a further input to perform the modification action; and determining that the first credential satisfies a first permission level associated with the database update and that the second credential satisfies a second permission level associated with the command, as taught by Wu, in the same way to the database update method, as taught by Raju. Both inventions are in the field of authorizing updates to cloud databases, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “two-person rule (TPR) enforcement for backup and recovery systems,” as indicated by Wu (¶ 1).
Regarding claim 4, Raju teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein applying the input to the natural language model to generate the modification action comprises: applying a first input to the natural language model to generate a list of names of potential modification actions that includes a name of the modification action (¶ 83, “The front-end server 210 can use the texts to perform a query on the data server 106 to generate one or more tasks assigned to the user for display in the voice UI 709”); and applying a second input, that includes the name of the modification action, to the natural language model to generate the modification action (¶ 76, “User A 208 can speak to the client device through the IVR mobile application 705 as to which task of the displayed tasks 715 to update, how to update the task”).
Regarding claim 6, Raju teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the computing system is a cloud computing environment, and wherein applying the input to the natural language model, determining that the update condition is satisfied with respect to the command, transmitting the command to the computing system, and receiving the value for the parameter are performed by a local computing system that is in communication with the cloud computing environment (¶ 39, “the cloud platform server 111 can be provided between client devices 101-102 and the task database system 105. Users at client devices 101-102 can log in to the cloud server 111, which can utilize services and data provided by the task database server 105”).
Regarding claim 8, Raju teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: providing a virtual agent dialog to a user and obtaining user text from the user via the virtual agent dialog (¶ 57, “As further shown in FIG. 3, the texts generated by the machine learning server 309 from the image 315 can be sent back as editable text 317 to the mobile application 305, which can provide a graphical user interface 310 for the user to edit the text 317”); and determining that the user text represents a user request to generate the modification action, wherein applying the input to the natural language model to generate the modification action is performed responsive to determining that the user text represents the user request to generate the modification action (¶ 58, “the user may correct a spelling error and one or more informalities in the editable texts 317 through the graphical user interface 310. Once the text editing is completed, the user is prompted to confirm the user-edited text in another graphical user interface (e.g., confirmation page 308) for confirmation”).
Regarding claim 21, Raju and Wu teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the input is applied to the natural language model by a controller (Raju, “receiving, at a cloud server, an image from a mobile device over a network, wherein the image was taken using a camera of the mobile device capturing an exterior surface of a physical medium; applying one or more neutral network models to the image to recognize, extract, and categorize content data representing content information printed on the exterior surface of the physical medium according to a predetermined category list,” the cloud server corresponds to the recited controller), the method further comprising: in response to transmitting the command, accessing, by the controller, private database data (Wu, ¶ 38, “the data management system may transmit an indication of the request to the second user, and may update the configuration settings of the backup database in response to receiving a notification that the second user has approved the request,” the configuration settings of the backup database corresponds to the private database data); and executing the command at the computing system using the private database data (Wu, ¶ 102, “the data management system 810 may execute the request and update the one or more configuration settings of the backup database”).
Regarding claim 22, Raju teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the command to the computing system further comprises making the modification action available to one or more additional computing systems (¶ 37, “The task database system 105 provides task data services and data to a variety of clients, which may be periodically or constantly accessed and updated by the clients for managing their task management data”).
Regarding claim 24, Wu teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that a further update condition is satisfied by: subsequent to obtaining the first credential and the indication, obtaining, from a further user, a further credential and a yet further input to perform the modification action (¶ 110, “identifying a second user that is authorized to approve the request from the first user in accordance with a second set of permissions associated with the second user”); and determining that the first credential satisfies the first permission level associated with the database update (¶ 110, “a means for determining that the first user is authorized to update the one or more configuration settings of the backup database in accordance with the first set of permissions associated with the first user”) and that the further credential satisfies the second permission level (¶ 110, “identifying a second user that is authorized to approve the request”); in response to determining that the further update condition is satisfied, transmitting a further command to the computing system and receiving, from the computing system, a further value for the parameter (¶ 115, “the indication transmitting component 1040 may be configured as or otherwise support a means for transmitting an indication of the second request to the second user based on determining that the first user is authorized to update the other configuration settings of the backup database”); and updating the parameter of the database based on the further value (¶ 170, “A method for updating configuration settings of a backup database supported by a data management system”).
Claims 9, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 20 recite commensurate subject matter as claims 1, 4, 6, and 8. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raju and Wu, as applied above, and further in view of Parks (US 12,010,120).
Regarding claim 3, Raju and Nguyen do not teach; however, Parks discloses: the second permission level is less than the first permission level (col. 13:8-13, “a hierarchical role model, users at one permission level may have access to applications, data, and database information accessible by a lower permission level user, but may not have access to certain applications, database information, and data accessible by a user at a higher permission level”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the second permission level is less than the first permission level, as taught by Parks, in the same way to the command, as taught by Raju and Nguyen. Both inventions are in the field of receiving natural language commands and generating computer system tasks, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “sell goods or services, maintain business records, and provide individuals with access to computing resources, among other cloud-related objectives,” as indicated by Parks (col. 1:10-12).
Claim(s) 11 recite(s) commensurate subject matter as claim(s) 3. Therefore, it/they is/are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 5, 13, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raju and Wu, as applied above, and further in view of Dong (Yihong Dong, Xue Jiang, Zhi Jin, and Ge Li. Self-collaboration code generation via chatgpt, 2023).
Regarding claim 5, Raju and Wu do not teach; however, Dong discloses: the first input and the second input both include text instructing the natural language model to produce output as though generated by a skilled developer (page 2, “Fig. 1. An example of role-playing. Through role-playing, LLM transforms into an expert within a specific domain, delivering a professional-perspective response to the same requirement” and “User I want you to act as a developer”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the first input and the second input both include text instructing the natural language model to produce output as though generated by a skilled developer, as taught by Dong, in the same way to the first and second input, as taught by Raju and Wu. Both inventions are in the field of applying input to a natural language model, and combining them would have predictably resulted in a method to “collaborate and interact, so that different roles form a virtual team to facilitate each other’s work, ultimately the virtual team addresses code generation tasks collaboratively without the need for human intervention,” as indicated by Dong (page 1).
Regarding claim 23, Raju and Wu do not teach; however, Dong discloses: the indication that the modification action is approved comprises the indication that the modification action is functional (page 15, section 4.7.1, “The tester composes a detailed test report for the implemented code, identifying errors within it”), and wherein the further input to perform the modification action comprises the modification action being approved for use (page 15, section 4.7.1, “The tester assessed the revised code, confirming that no issues exist and all tests pass, thus concluding the code generation process”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the indication that the modification action is approved comprises the indication that the modification action is functional, and wherein the further input to perform the modification action comprises the modification action being approved for use, as taught by Dong, in the same way to the first and second input, as taught by Raju and Wu. Both inventions are in the field of applying input to a natural language model, and combining them would have predictably resulted in a method to “collaborate and interact, so that different roles form a virtual team to facilitate each other’s work, ultimately the virtual team addresses code generation tasks collaboratively without the need for human intervention,” as indicated by Dong (page 1).
Claim(s) 13 recite(s) commensurate subject matter as claim(s) 5. Therefore, it/they is/are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raju and Nguyen, as applied above, and further in view of Maes (US 11,120,217).
Regarding claim 7, Raju and Nguyen do not teach; however, Maes discloses: the command of the modification action is to create, delete, or modify a virtual machine in the cloud computing environment (col. 1:67 and col. 2:1-5, “the cloud orchestration workflow may refer to a sequence of operations to perform such tasks as provisioning cloud resources (cloud services, cloud components, virtual machines, applications, servers, cloud storage, and so forth); deploying cloud resources; managing the lifecycle of cloud resources; and so forth”), wherein the database includes records relating to operation of one or more virtual machines in the cloud computing environment (col. 9:30-34, “the machine translation 200 produces a single output cloud orchestration workflow 150 that includes the following ordered sequence of operations: a first operation 254 to acquire the instance operating system for the virtual machine on DataCenter1”), and wherein updating the parameter of a database based on the value updates one or more of the records to reflect creation, deletion, or modification of the virtual machine (col. 9:33-38, “a first operation 254 to acquire the instance operating system for the virtual machine on DataCenter1; a second operation 258 to acquire the configuration (CPU, memory, disks, and so forth) of the virtual machine on the DataCenter1; an operation 262 to shut down the virtual machine instance on DataCenter1”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the command of the modification action is to create, delete, or modify a virtual machine in the cloud computing environment, wherein the database includes records relating to operation of one or more virtual machines in the cloud computing environment, and wherein updating the parameter of a database based on the value updates one or more of the records to reflect creation, deletion, or modification of the virtual machine, as taught by Maes, in the same way to the command, as taught by Raju and Nguyen. Both inventions are in the field of receiving natural language commands and generating computer system tasks, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “sell goods or services, maintain business records, and provide individuals with access to computing resources, among other cloud-related objectives,” as indicated by Maes (col. 1:10-12).
Claim(s) 15 recite(s) commensurate subject matter as claim(s) 7. Therefore, it/they is/are rejected for the same reasons.
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 JACOB D DASCOMB whose telephone number is (571)272-9993. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/JACOB D DASCOMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights