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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected in the application. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Argues:
Moreover, Ahmadia fails to disclose or suggest "extracting, by the computing device, a prompt from the natural language text in the search request" and "executing, by the computing device, the search generation machine learning model to output one or more search criteria based on the extracted prompt, the output one or more search criteria mapping the extracted prompt to a learned data storage structure used by the digital data storage to sort and store data associated with the extracted prompt" as recited in the amended claim 1 and analogously recited in claims 8 and 15. The Office cites to paras. [0081], [0110], and [0138] of Ahmadia for an alleged disclosure of "extract a prompt from the natural language text in the search request" and "execute a search generation machine learning model to output one or more search criteria based on the extracted prompt, the output one or more search criteria indicating a data storage structure used by the digital storage to sort and store data associated with the extracted prompt" (Office Action at 7-8). Applicant respectfully disagrees and directs the Office's attention to these cited paragraphs in Ahmadia as set forth below.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 103 arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OJha et al. U.S. Patent Publication (12,511,282; hereinafter: Ojha) in view of Lee et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0097443; hereinafter: Lee) and further in view of Ahmadia et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2025/0258874; hereinafter: Ahmadia)
Claims 1, 8, and 15
As to claims 1, 8, and 15, Ojha discloses a computing device, comprising a memory comprising programmed instructions stored thereon and one or more processors configured to execute the stored programmed instructions to (column 33, lines 1-10, the reference describes processing program instructions.):
receive the search request via the natural language input interface, the search request comprising the natural language text input by the user (column 2, lines 13-28, the reference describe a natural language query input.);
search the digital data storage based on the one or more search criteria to obtain a search result (column 2, lines 13-28, the reference describe determining search criteria from the natural language query.);
extract a prompt from the natural language text in the search request (column 13, lines 3-36, the reference describes a computer system retrieving determining a prompt from the natural language input.);
execute a search generation machine learning model to output one or more search criteria based on the extracted prompt, the output one or more search criteria mapping the extracted prompt to a learned data storage structure used by the digital storage to sort and store data associated with the extracted prompt (column 18, line 11-41, the reference describes mapping prompt elements to data storage structure to create SQL queries. The reference describes the SQL doing sorting commands like Order by.);
and
display the search result via the user interface as a response to the search request (Figure 11, column 7, lines 35-43, the reference describes displaying the results.).
Ojha does not appear to explicitly disclose
train a search generation machine learning model, with data stored in a digital data storage as input training data, to output a plurality of criteria, the plurality of criteria indicating data storage structure used by the digital data storage to sort and storage the data in the digital data storage;
display a user interface comprising a natural input interface configured to receive a search request submitted by a user, the natural language input interface enabling the user to submit the search request by inputting natural language text without selecting one or more predetermined fields via the user interface;
However, Lee discloses train a search generation machine learning model, with data stored in a digital data storage as input training data, to output a plurality of criteria (paragraph[0044], the reference describes training a machine learning network to translate search prompts into sql.), the plurality of criteria indicating data storage structure used by the digital data storage to sort and store the data in the digital data storage (paragraph[0032]-paragraph[0033], the reference describes retrieving data and sorting it using SQL syntax (e.g., ORDER By).). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Ojha with the teachings of Lee to train machine learning models to search data from natural language which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Ojha with the teachings of Lee to efficiently recognize a particular speech input from natural language (Lee: paragraph[0003]).
The combination of Ojha and Lee do not appear to explicitly disclose
display a user interface comprising a natural input interface configured to receive a search request submitted by a user, the natural language input interface enabling the user to submit the search request by inputting natural language text without selecting one or more predetermined fields via the user interface;
However, Ahmadia discloses display a user interface comprising a natural input interface configured to receive a search request submitted by a user, the natural language input interface enabling the user to submit the search request by inputting natural language text without selecting one or more predetermined fields via the user interface (paragraph[0110], the reference describes inputting natural language into an interface.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Ojha with the teachings of Lee and Ahmadia to retrieve and classify documents based on a prompt which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Ojha with the teachings of Lee and Ahmadia to efficiently deploy machine learning models to identify documents responsive to an inquiry (Ahmadia: paragraph[0003]).
Claims 2, 9, and 16
As to claims 2, 9, and 16, the combination of Ojha, Lee, and Ahmadia discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, and Ojha further disclose display the one or more search criteria via the user interface (Figure 1, column 12, lines 29-38, the reference describes displaying the SQL criteria.).
Claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OJha et al. U.S. Patent Publication (12,511,282; hereinafter: Ojha) in view of Lee et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0097443; hereinafter: Lee) and further in view of Ahmadia et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2025/0258874; hereinafter: Ahmadia) and further in view of Abdallah et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0316311; hereinafter: Abdallah)
Claims 3, 10, and 17
As to claims 3, 10, and 17, the combination of Ojha, Lee, and Ahmadia discloses all the elements in claim 9, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose detect a user modification on the basis of the displayed one or more search criteria via the natural language input interface or the displayed search result;
obtaining one or more updated search criteria based on the user modification; and
wherein the searching of the data storage comprises:
searching the data storage based on the one or more updated search criteria to obtain the search result
However, Abdallah further disclose detect a user modification on the basis of the displayed one or more search criteria via the natural language input interface or the displayed search result (paragraph[0024], the reference describes a user changing the filter criteria.);
obtaining one or more updated search criteria based on the user modification (paragraph[0024], the reference describes updating the filter criteria and conducting a search.); and
wherein the searching of the data storage comprises:
searching the data storage based on the one or more updated search criteria to obtain the search result(paragraph[0026], the reference describes bring in search results based on the updated filter.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Ojha with the teachings of Lee, Ahmadia, and Abdallah to update search criteria which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Ojha with the teachings of Lee, Ahmadia, and Abdallah to efficiently suggest and guide property seekers with filter criteria (Abdallah: paragraph[0016]).
Claims 6, 13, and 20
As to claims 6, 13, and 20, the combination of Ojha, Lee, and Ahmadia discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose generate the one or more prompt recommendations based on at least one of a profile of a user submitting the search request, a preference of the user, a historical prompt input by the user, a geographical location of the user, or the one or more criteria; and
display the one or more prompt recommendations via the user interface.
However, Abdallah further disclose generate the one or more prompt recommendations based on at least one of a profile of a user submitting the search request, a preference of the user, a historical prompt input by the user, a geographical location of the user, or the one or more criteria (paragraph[0017], the reference describes using the users past preferences like location and pass user interactions (i.e., a historical prompt, as claimed).); and
display the one or more prompt recommendations via the user interface (paragraph[0017], the reference describes displaying a filter based on the past preferences of the user.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Ojha with the teachings of Lee, Ahmadia, and Abdallah to update search criteria which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Ojha with the teachings of Lee, Ahmadia, and Abdallah to efficiently suggest and guide property seekers with filter criteria (Abdallah: paragraph[0016]).
Claims 7 and 14
As to claims 7 and 14, the combination of Abdallah, Lee, and Ahmadia discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the search request is submitted by a via the natural language input interface to perform a property search, and the prompt comprises at least one of text or audio input by the user
However, Abdallah disclose wherein the search request is submitted by a via the natural language input interface to perform a property search, and the prompt comprises at least one of text or audio input by the user (Figure 8, paragraph[0018], the reference describes receiving text search.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Ojha with the teachings of Lee, Ahmadia, and Abdallah to update search criteria which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Ojha with the teachings of Lee, Ahmadia, and Abdallah to efficiently suggest and guide property seekers with filter criteria (Abdallah: paragraph[0016]).
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OJha et al. U.S. Patent Publication (12,511,282; hereinafter: Ojha) in view of Lee et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0097443; hereinafter: Lee) and further in view of Ahmadia et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2025/0258874; hereinafter: Ahmadia) and further in view of Wheeler et al. U.S. Publication (2025/0029192; hereinafter: Wheeler)
Claims 4, 11, and 18
As to claims 4, 11, and 18, the combination of OJha, Lee, and Wheeler discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose generate one or more prompt recommendations based on the extracted prompt; and
display the one or more prompt recommendations via the user interface.
However, Wheeler further disclose generate one or more prompt recommendations based on the extracted prompt (paragraph[0095], the reference describes generating a second recommendation prompt.); and
display the one or more prompt recommendations via the user interface (paragraph[0095], the reference describes generating a second recommendation prompt and displaying the prompt.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of OJha with the teachings of Lee, Ahmadia, and Wheeler to use AI to search real estate information which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of OJha with the teachings of Lee, Ahmadia, and Wheeler to efficiently improve property improvement recommendations (Wheeler: paragraph[0002]).
Claims 5, 12, and 19
As to claims 5, 12, and 19, the combination of OJha, Lee, and Ahmadia discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose detect a user input via the user interface;
generate the one or more prompt recommendations based on the user input; and
display the one or more prompt recommendations via the user interface.
However, Wheeler discloses detect a user input via the user interface (paragraph[0079], the reference describes an interface.);
generate the one or more prompt recommendations based on the user input(paragraph[0095], the reference describes generating a second recommendation prompt and displaying the prompt.); and
display the one or more prompt recommendations via the user interface (paragraph[0095], the reference describes generating a second recommendation prompt and displaying the prompt.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of OJha with the teachings of Lee, Ahmadia, and Wheeler to use AI to search real estate information which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of OJha with the teachings of Lee, Ahmadia, and Wheeler to efficiently improve property improvement recommendations (Wheeler: paragraph[0002]).
Final Rejection
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J. Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 April 28, 2026
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024
Prosecution Insights