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
This Final Office action is responsive to the communication filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 on August 11, 2025 (hereafter “Response”). The amendments to the claims are acknowledged and have been entered.
Claims 1, 3, 5–7, 9, 11–13, 15, 17, and 18 are now amended.
Claims 2, 8, and 14 are now canceled.
Claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, and 15–18 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The objection to the title is hereby withdrawn, responsive to the amendment correcting the title.
The rejection of claims 6, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is hereby withdrawn, responsive to the amendments to those claims correcting the issue raised in the rejection.
Claim(s) 1, 3–7, 9–13, and 15–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0258456 A1 (“Byun”), the rejection only withdrawn for those claims that are now cancelled.
The Applicant argues that Byun did not anticipate claims 2, 8, or 14, and therefore, rewrote those claims in their independent form by incorporating them into their parent claims. However, since the rejection of claims 2, 8, and 14 was proper, the rejection stands, as now applied to the rewritten parent claims. The Applicant’s remarks have been considered, but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s remarks appear to be based on an incorrect belief that “[t]here is simply no disclosure in the cited paragraph of Byun of ‘historical interaction data [that] includes interaction data between the mobile terminal and the user that is generated within a preset time period before a current moment’ or ‘historical interaction data [that] includes interaction data between the mobile terminal and the user that is generated within a preset quantity of interaction times before a current moment.’” (Response 9).
Respectfully, the Applicant is ignoring the portion of Byun directly quoted in the Office Action that discloses terminal 100 filtering its results to those “which the user has utilized or which has a high usage frequency, on the display.” (Non-Final Office Action 6 ¶ 24) (quoting Byun ¶ 166). Both of these clearly fall well within the broad scope of “historical interaction data [that] includes interaction data between the mobile terminal and the user that is generated within a preset quantity of interaction times before a current moment.” For the “has utilized” embodiment, the preset quantity is 1 interaction time. In other words, the terminal 100 necessarily maintains a record of the user’s past interactions with prior results, and uses that data to filter the current results to only those results that meet the minimum number of previous interactions (in this case, 1 interaction). It does not matter that the “preset quantity” is as low as 1 time for this embodiment to anticipate the claim, because the Applicant did not recite a number for the claimed “preset quantity.”
Likewise, for the “high usage frequency” embodiment, the preset quantity is whatever number the terminal 100 is programmed with to distinguish “high usage” results from those that do not have sufficiently high usage. In other words, the terminal 100 of this embodiment similarly maintains a record of the user’s (or users’) past interactions with prior results, and uses that data to filter the current results to only those results that meet the minimum number of previous interactions (in this case, the “high” number of usages). Also, much like with the first embodiment, Byun does not need to provide the actual number of usages deemed to be “high usage,” because the claim language does not recite a number either. Simply put, Byun discloses that there is some number of past interactions wherein results with above or equal to that number satisfy the criteria, while results below that number fail to satisfy that number. As long as the number is predefined, the claim is anticipated.
Furthermore, since Byun at least discloses the “preset quantity” portion of the claim, Byun does not need to separately disclose “‘historical interaction data [that] includes interaction data between the mobile terminal and the user that is generated within a preset time period before a current moment” in order to reach a finding of anticipation, because the Applicant chose to separate those two limitations with the word “or.” A claim that covers multiple alternatives is anticipated when the prior art discloses at least one of those alternatives. See Brown v. 3M, 256 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, Claim(s) 1, 3–7, 9–13, and 15–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Byun, and the Applicant’s request for a notice of allowance (Response 11) is respectfully denied.
Claim Objections
The Office objects to the claims for having the following two informalities:
(1) Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 13, and 15 use semicolons improperly. In the context of the present invention, semicolons are meant to separate distinct steps and/or components of the claimed invention, but in claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 13, and 15, the Applicant relies on mixed use of semicolons both for step/element separation, and as a replacement for commas (e.g., to separate “wherein” clauses and “or” disjunctions from one another). Wherein clauses and disjunctive connectors are not separate steps or elements, so they should not be separated with semicolons.
(2) The amendment rolling-up limitations of claims 2, 8, and 14 up into their parent claims improperly tacks those limitations onto the end of each parent claim, when the steps they are meant to limit appear at the beginning of each claim. This causes the rest of the claim to separate a limitation from its corresponding step, making the narrative difficult to follow.
(3) In claims 3, 9, and 15, the newly added language renders the syntax of the “or” disjunctive confusing, because (grammatically), it is unclear whether the first wherein clause is meant to be part of a list of three alternatives, or if the first wherein clause is recited as a common limitation to both alternatives.
Therefore, the Examiner proposes the following amendments:
1. An information recommendation method comprising: obtaining at least one behavioral intention of a user, wherein the at least one behavioral intention is determined based on historical interaction data between a mobile terminal and the user, and wherein the historical interaction data includes interaction data between the mobile terminal and the user that is generated within a preset time period before a current moment, or the historical interaction data includes interaction data between the mobile terminal and the user that is generated within a preset quantity of interaction times before a current moment;
presenting recommendation information based on the at least one behavioral intention, wherein the recommendation information indicates to the user to choose from the at least one behavioral intention; and
in response to detecting that the user has selected a target intention in the at least one behavioral intention based on the recommendation information, triggering a target function, wherein the target function is for use in implementing the target intention[[;]]
3. The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining at least one further behavioral intention of the user, wherein the at least one further behavioral intention of the user is determined based on further historical interaction data between the mobile terminal and the user, and includes either: [[;]]
, or
Claims 7 and 9 should be amended with the same correction as respective claims 1 and 3, and likewise, claims 13 and 15 should be amended with the same correction as claims 1 and 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3–7, 9–13, and 15–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0258456 A1 (“Byun”).
Claim 1
Byun discloses:
An information recommendation method comprising:
FIG. 1 illustrates an “intelligent system 10” that performs the claimed method as part of its normal operation, for the reasons discussed below. A portion of the method performed by part of system 10 is also illustrated via the flowchart of FIG. 7, see Byun ¶ 131, but for the sake of brevity, this rejection will also refer to the components of intelligent system 10 responsible for performing the steps recited in claim 1, rather than merely the flowchart of FIG. 7. Systems that perform methods as part of their normal operation necessarily anticipate the methods they were built to perform. See MPEP § 2112.02.
obtaining at least one behavioral intention of a user,
An intelligent server 200 (FIGS. 1, 2, and 4, and renumbered as 610 in FIG. 6) of intelligent system 10 “determines (or selects) at least one category for performing a task corresponding to [a] user input among a plurality of categories,” and “determines a domain for processing the task among domains included in the determined category.” Byun ¶ 135.
wherein the at least one behavioral intention is determined based on historical interaction data between a mobile terminal and the user;
Byun’s system collects and uses “usage information” from the user terminal 100 to further determine how to respond to the user’s input. See Byun ¶¶ 72, 123 and 166. Further limitations concerning the historical interaction data have been tacked on to the end of this claim, rather than recited here. Therefore, a further discussion of why Byun’s usage information explicitly anticipates each and every recited limitation of the claimed historical interaction data will be provided below, together with the claim’s delayed recitation of those limitations.
presenting recommendation information based on the at least one behavioral intention, wherein the recommendation information indicates to the user to choose from the at least one behavioral intention; and
“In step 750, the intelligent server 610 transmits information about the selected category and the selected domain to the user terminal. For example, the intelligent server 610 may perform at least part of a task corresponding to the user input using the chatbot server 621, 623, or 625 corresponding to the selected domain and may transmit the result of performing the at least part of the task, to the user terminal 100. The user terminal 100 may provide a user with the information through a UI. For example, the UI may include a GUI including at least one section for at least one category.” Byun ¶ 136; see also FIGS. 13 and 15A (illustrating the GUI from which the user may select the exact task he wishes to perform).
in response to detecting that the user has selected a target intention in the at least one behavioral intention based on the recommendation information, triggering a target function, wherein the target function is for use in implementing the target intention.
“The user terminal 100 may receive a second user input for continuously providing a service corresponding to a first user input through the information provided to the user. For example, the second user input may be an input for selecting at least one of a plurality of domains included in the received information.” Byun ¶ 136. “In step 760, the intelligent server 610 receives the second user input and may provide the service corresponding to a user input through the chatbot server 621, 623, or 625 corresponding to the second user input. For example, the user may be provided with a specified service via a website or an app.” Byun ¶ 137.
wherein the historical interaction data includes interaction data between the mobile terminal and the user that is generated within a preset time period before a current moment; or the historical interaction data includes interaction data between the mobile terminal and the user that is generated within a preset quantity of interaction times before a current moment.
“When the user terminal 100 receives a plurality of results for performing a task corresponding to a user input from the intelligent server 610 (or the chatbot server 621, 623, or 625), the user terminal 100 may selectively display a part of the received plurality of results on the display. For example, the user terminal 100 may preferentially display a result of the plurality of results (i.e., a part of the plurality of results) received from the chatbot server 621, 623, and 625, which the user has utilized or which has a high usage frequency, on the display.” Byun ¶ 166.
Claim 3
Byun discloses the method according to claim 1,
obtaining at least one further behavioral intention of the user, wherein the at least one further behavioral intention of the user is determined based on further historical interaction data between the mobile terminal and the user, wherein the further historical interaction data includes a statement entered by the user in a target application that runs on the mobile terminal;
Before addressing this claim, it is important to understand the scope of the claimed “further historical interaction data.” Both the broadest reasonable interpretation and plain meaning of “further historical interaction data” is that it does not inherit the limitations of the “historical interaction data” recited in claim 1, because the language of claim 3 explicitly delineates “further” historical interaction data” as a separate set of data from “the” historical interaction data recited earlier in claim 1. “When different words or phrases are used in separate claims, a difference in meaning is presumed.” Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 424 F.3d 1136, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
For its part, Byun discloses that in “step 710, the intelligent server 610 receives a first user input for performing at least one task from a user terminal (or a client device) 100.” Byun ¶ 132. “The user terminal 100 may include a UI and may receive or transmit the first user input through the UI.” Byun ¶ 132. This input is then used in steps 730–740 to determine recommendations that are responsive to the input. See Byun ¶¶ 134–135.
or the further historical interaction data includes data generated when the user interacts with a target application that runs on the mobile terminal.
“Additionally or alternatively, the user terminal 100 may display a result of the plurality of results received from the chatbot server 621, 623, or 625 on the display based on the user's evaluation of the plurality of chatbot servers 620. In other words, the user terminal 100 may preferentially display a result received from the chatbot server 621, 623, or 625, which has received a high evaluation from the user, on the display. The user terminal 100 may receive a feedback input from the user to store the evaluation of the user.” Byun ¶ 166.
Claim 4
Byun discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein semantics of the historical interaction data includes the at least one behavioral intention of the user.
“According to an embodiment, the NLU module 220 may grasp user intent by performing syntactic analysis or semantic analysis. The syntactic analysis may divide the user input into syntactic units (e.g., words, phrases, morphemes, and the like) and determine which syntactic elements the divided units have. The semantic analysis may be performed by using semantic matching, rule matching, formula matching, or the like. As such, the NLU module 220 may obtain a domain, intent, or a parameter (or a slot) utilized for the user input to express the intent.” Byun ¶ 82.
Claim 5
Byun discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein presenting the recommendation information comprises:
displaying at least one function trigger option,
“In step 750, the intelligent server 610 transmits information about the selected category and the selected domain to the user terminal,” and “user terminal 100 may provide a user with the information through a UI.” Byun ¶ 136.
wherein each function trigger option of the at least one function trigger option corresponds to one behavioral intention,
“For example, the UI may include a GUI including at least one section for at least one category.” Byun ¶ 136.
and each function trigger option of the at least one function trigger option is used to trigger a function of implementing a corresponding behavioral intention.
“The user terminal 100 may receive a second user input for continuously providing a service corresponding to a first user input through the information provided to the user. For example, the second user input may be an input for selecting at least one of a plurality of domains included in the received information.” Byun ¶ 136. “In step 760, the intelligent server 610 receives the second user input and may provide the service corresponding to a user input through the chatbot server 621, 623, or 625 corresponding to the second user input.” Byun ¶ 137.
Claim 6
Byun discloses the method according to claim 5, further comprising:
obtaining at least one further behavioral intention of the user, wherein the at least one further behavioral intention of the user is determined based on further historical interaction data between the mobile terminal and the user, wherein the further historical interaction data includes a statement entered by the user in a target application that runs on the mobile terminal;
“The user terminal 100 may include a UI and may receive or transmit the first user input through the UI.” Byun ¶ 132.
performing word segmentation processing on the statement to obtain at least one word segment,
“In step 720, the ASR module 611 of the intelligent server 610 changes voice data included in the user input to text data.” Byun ¶ 133.
wherein each word segment corresponds to one behavioral intention; and
“In step 730, the category classifier module 613a of the intelligent server 610 determines (or selects) at least one category for performing a task corresponding to the user input among a plurality of categories. In step 740, the chatbot selection module 613b of the intelligent server 610 determines a domain for processing the task among domains included in the determined category.” Byun ¶¶ 134–135.
displaying the at least one word segment and displaying a corresponding function trigger option near a display location of each of the at least one word segment.
“In step 750, the intelligent server 610 transmits information about the selected category and the selected domain to the user terminal,” using “a GUI including at least one section for at least one category.” Byun ¶ 136. Specifically, as shown in FIG. 13, “the user terminal 100 may receive a response corresponding to a first user input 1211 saying “let me know movie discount information!”, from the intelligent server 610. For example, the response may include information 1212 obtained through the chatbot server 621, 623, or 625 included in the movie category 605_2 selected by the first user input 1211.” Byun ¶ 157.
Claims 7 and 9–12
Claims 7 and 9–12 are directed to an information recommendation apparatus comprising a processor configured to perform the same method as set forth in corresponding claims 1 and 3–6. Since the rejection of claims 1 and 3–6 relies upon an apparatus programmed to perform the method, claims 7 and 9–12 are rejected over the same findings and rationale as provided above for claims 1 and 3–6.
Claims 13 and 15–18
Claims 13 and 15–18 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions which cause a computer to perform the same method as set forth in corresponding claims 1 and 3–6. Since the rejection of claims 1–6 relies upon an apparatus programmed to perform the method, claims 13 and 15–18 are rejected over the same findings and rationale as provided above for claims 1 and 3–6.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights