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 . under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending and are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 07/18th/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner's Note
The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123). The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claim(s) above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim(s), typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
101 Rejection
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 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter
Step 1 Analysis:
Claims 1-11, and 20 are directed to a computing system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Claims 12-19 are directed to a method which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Regarding Claim 1:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis:
Claim 1 recites in part process steps which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are a series of mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim recites in part:
perform a matching operation that attempts to match the message to one of the plurality of command constructions Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper (such as an operator matching a message to a command in a database). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
responsive to successfully matching the message to the one of the plurality of command constructions, generate a command based on the one of the plurality of command constructions, and execute the generated command Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper (such as an operator generating a command that matches a message and executing the commend). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of:
A computing system for interpreting commands is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
store a constructions database comprising a plurality of command constructions is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of storing data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
receive a request including a message as natural language input from an interaction interface is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis:
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
A computing system for interpreting commands is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
store a constructions database comprising a plurality of command constructions is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of storing data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "storing and retrieving information in memory").
receive a request including a message as natural language input from an interaction interface is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to gathering information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
For the reasons above, claim 1 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
The additional limitations of the dependent claims contain no additional elements that provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are addressed briefly below.
Dependent claim 2:
Step 2A Prong 1:
generate a command corresponding to the message, and executes the generated command Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper (such as an operator generating a command that matches a message and executing the commend). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of:
responsive to failing to match the message to the one of the plurality of command constructions, the orchestrator inputs the message into a trained generative language model to is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
responsive to failing to match the message to the one of the plurality of command constructions, the orchestrator inputs the message into a trained generative language model to is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
For the reasons above, claim 2 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 3:
Step 2A Prong 1:
inquire how the command was generated, so as to generate a command explanation Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper (such as an operator generating a command explanation). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of:
the orchestrator is further configured to: for the generated command, input a prompt into the trained generative language model to is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
incorporate the command explanation into the constructions database is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of storing data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the orchestrator is further configured to: for the generated command, input a prompt into the trained generative language model to is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
incorporate the command explanation into the constructions database is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of storing data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "storing and retrieving information in memory").
For the reasons above, claim 3 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 4:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental processes as the independent claim by dependency
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of:
the generation of the command explanation is refined by inputting external feedback into the trained generative language model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the generation of the command explanation is refined by inputting external feedback into the trained generative language model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
For the reasons above, claim 4 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 5:
Step 2A Prong 1:
generates a command explanation by parsing the message into sub-phrases, and categorizing each sub-phrase into categories including at least an action and an action parameter, and synonyms for each sub-phrase Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper (such as an operator generating a command explanation by parsing a message and categorizing each sub-phrase according to an action and synonym). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of:
the trained generative language model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the trained generative language model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
For the reasons above, claim 5 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 6:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental processes as the independent claim by dependency
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of:
the categories include predetermined common parameter types including days of the week is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the categories include predetermined common parameter types including days of the week is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
For the reasons above, claim 6 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 7:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental processes as the independent claim by dependency
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of:
the constructions database is consolidated by merging constructions based on common categories is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the constructions database is consolidated by merging constructions based on common categories is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
For the reasons above, claim 7 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 8:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental processes as the independent claim by dependency
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of:
The computing system of claim 2, comprising a server computing device and a client computing device is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
the orchestrator and the constructions database are stored on the client computing device, and the trained generative language model is stored on the server computing device is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
The computing system of claim 2, comprising a server computing device and a client computing device is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
the orchestrator and the constructions database are stored on the client computing device, and the trained generative language model is stored on the server computing device is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
For the reasons above, claim 8 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 9:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental processes as the independent claim by dependency
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of:
the command is generated by the trained generative language model with a transducer function implementing part-of speech tagging is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the command is generated by the trained generative language model with a transducer function implementing part-of speech tagging is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
For the reasons above, claim 9 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 10:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental processes as the independent claim by dependency
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of:
the constructions are formatted as a sequence of semantic components including actions, objects, prepositions, and modifiers is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the constructions are formatted as a sequence of semantic components including actions, objects, prepositions, and modifiers is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
For the reasons above, claim 10 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 11:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same mental processes as the independent claim by dependency
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of:
the constructions database is updated based on changes in usage detected in inputs from users of the computing system is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the constructions database is updated based on changes in usage detected in inputs from users of the computing system is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
For the reasons above, claim 11 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Claims 12-19 are the method claims corresponding to the system claims 1-7, and 11 respectively, therefore, they are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1-7, and 11.
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis:
Claim 20 recites in part process steps which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are a series of mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim recites in part:
generate a plurality of language constructions corresponding to the plurality of messages, respectively Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper (such as an operator generating a phrase that matches a message). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
inquire how the language constructions was generated, so as to generate a plurality of construction explanations Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper (such as an operator generating a command explanation). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
parse a request into semantic components, and translate the semantic components into a structured language format, so as to generate a language construction based on the parsed request Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper (such as an operator parsing a message, translating the parsed message, and generating a command based on the parsed message). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of:
A computing system for interpreting language, the system comprising: processing circuitry and associated memory configured to is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
store a constructions database comprising a plurality of language constructions is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of storing data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
receive a plurality of requests including a plurality of messages, respectively, as natural language input from an interaction interface is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
input the plurality of messages into a trained generative language model to is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
for each of the generated plurality of language constructions, input a prompt into the trained generative language model to is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
incorporate the plurality of construction explanations into the constructions database is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of storing data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
consolidate the constructions database is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of storing data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
based on merging constructions based on common categories is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
deploy the constructions database in an agent cache configured to is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B Analysis:
Claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
A computing system for interpreting language, the system comprising: processing circuitry and associated memory configured to is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
store a constructions database comprising a plurality of language constructions is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of storing data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "storing and retrieving information in memory").
receive a request including a message as natural language input from an interaction interface is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to gathering information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
input the plurality of messages into a trained generative language model to is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
for each of the generated plurality of language constructions, input a prompt into the trained generative language model to is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
incorporate the plurality of construction explanations into the constructions database is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of storing data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
consolidate the constructions database is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of storing data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
based on merging constructions based on common categories is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
deploy the constructions database in an agent cache configured to is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
For the reasons above, claim 20 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
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 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 1-2, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over TAE-JUNG (KR102436666B1).
Regarding claim 1, TAE-JUNG teaches A computing system for interpreting commands ([Page 3, Sec. Description, Para. 8] The problem to be solved by the present invention is to use a chatbot to provide various information necessary for domestic life, receive a query word and utilize both the rulebase-based and AI artificial intelligence-based chatbots. In this case, an object of the present invention is to provide a hybrid chatbot service system and its service method that can provide response data by processing intention analysis for user queries by interworking with AI AI-based chatbot engine).
store a constructions database comprising a plurality of command constructions ([Page 4, line 3] The chatbot server stores the query word in the screen database and then analyzes the query word. You can compare if they match).
receive a request including a message as natural language input from an interaction interface ([Page 3, Sec. Description, Line 24] The hybrid chatbot engine obtains query example data based on the rule base).
perform a matching operation that attempts to match the message to one of the plurality of command constructions ([Page 3, Se. Description, Line 24] compares the query word with the query example data).
responsive to successfully matching the message to the one of the plurality of command constructions, generate a command based on the one of the plurality of command constructions, and execute the generated command ([Page 3, Se. Description, Line 24-25] when they match completely, selects the query example data as the response data and transmits it to the user terminal through the communication network chatbot server).
Regarding claim 2, TAE-JUNG teaches responsive to failing to match the message to the one of the plurality of command constructions, the orchestrator inputs the message into a trained generative language model to generate a command corresponding to the message, and executes the generated command ([Page 3, Sec. Description, Line 25-26] when the query word and the query example data in the chatbot server do not completely match, the query word is transmitted from the chatbot server, and the response data to the query word is obtained using either an AI-based chatbot dedicated engine or a global AI engine).
Claims 12-13 are the method claims corresponding to the system claims 1-2 respectively, therefore, they are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1-2.
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 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.
Claims 3-4, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAE-JUNG (KR102436666B1), in view of DOSHI (US20250278607A1), further in view of GALITSKY (US20210279424A1).
Regarding claim 3, TAE-JUNG teaches the method of claim 2, however, TAE-JUNG is not relied upon to explicitly teach:
for the generated command, input a prompt into the trained generative language model to inquire how the command was generated, so as to generate a command explanation.
incorporate the command explanation into the constructions database.
On the other hand, DOSHI teaches for the generated command, input a prompt into the trained generative language model to inquire how the command was generated, so as to generate a command explanation ([0007] determining the user question comprises a request for an explanation of an output of the application. The examiner notes that TAE-JUNG and DOSHI are both directed to machine learning and both are reasonably analogous to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified TAE-JUNG’s chatbot to incorporate for the generated command, input a prompt into the trained generative language model to inquire how the command was generated, so as to generate a command explanation as taught by DOSHI [0007] so that users may interact with an IVA with questions concerning features, outputs, or outcomes of the application [0003]).
Furthermore, GALITSKY teaches incorporate the command explanation into the constructions database ([0034] The explanation chain manager 124 may be configured to store the explanation chains it generates within database 114. The examiner notes that TAE-JUNG and GALITSKY are both directed to machine learning and both are reasonably analogous to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified TAE-JUNG’s chatbot to incorporate incorporate the command explanation into the constructions database as taught by GALITSKY [0034] to better handle questions and provide complete answers [0022]).
Regarding claim 4, TAE-JUNG teaches the method of claim 3, however, TAE-JUNG is not relied upon to explicitly teach the generation of the command explanation is refined by inputting external feedback into the trained generative language model. On the other hand, GALITSKY teaches the generation of the command explanation is refined by inputting external feedback into the trained generative language model ([0021] In some embodiments, an explanation of a decision of an abstract ML system may be provided in the form of a conversation, to improve the user's trust in that this decision is fair and reasonable, even if this decision does not favor a goal of this user. One value of a conversational explanation versus a static explanation in the form of a report is that it can provide as much or as little of the available details as the user desires, without overloading a user with details outside of her interest. The examiner notes that GALITSKU teaches refining the response to a query by receiving feedback from a user. The examiner notes that TAE-JUNG and GALITSKY are both directed to machine learning and both are reasonably analogous to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified TAE-JUNG’s chatbot to incorporate the generation of the command explanation is refined by inputting external feedback into the trained generative language model as taught by GALITSKY [0021] to improve the user's trust in that this decision is fair and reasonable, even if this decision does not favor a goal of this user [0021]).
Claims 14-15 are the method claims corresponding to the system claims 3-4 respectively, therefore, they are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 3-4.
Claims 5, 7, 11, 16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAE-JUNG (KR102436666B1), in view of GALITSKY (US20210279424A1).
Regarding claim 5, TAE-JUNG teaches the method of claim 2, however, TAE-JUNG is not relied upon to explicitly teach the trained generative language model generates a command explanation by parsing the message into sub-phrases, and categorizing each sub-phrase into categories including at least an action and an action parameter, and synonyms for each sub-phrase. Furthermore, GALITSKY teaches the trained generative language model generates a command explanation by parsing the message into sub-phrases, and categorizing each sub-phrase into categories including at least an action and an action parameter, and synonyms for each sub-phrase ([0044] FIG. 3 depicts an example semantic parse of the example explanation corresponding to FIG. 2, in accordance with at least one embodiment. The examiner notes that GALITSKY teaches parsing a request semantically to generate an explanation using machine learning. The examiner notes that TAE-JUNG and GALITSKY are both directed to machine learning and both are reasonably analogous to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified TAE-JUNG’s chatbot to incorporate the trained generative language model generates a command explanation by parsing the message into sub-phrases, and categorizing each sub-phrase into categories including at least an action and an action parameter, and synonyms for each sub-phrase as taught by GALITSKY [0044] to provide a more suitable method for classifying explanations [0045]).
Regarding claim 7, TAE-JUNG teaches the method of claim 5, however, TAE-JUNG is not relied upon to explicitly teach the constructions database is consolidated by merging constructions based on common categories. Furthermore, GALITSKY teaches the constructions database is consolidated by merging constructions based on common categories ([0190] In some implementations, server 1212 may include one or more applications to analyze and consolidate data feeds and/or event updates received from users of client computing devices 1202, 1204, 1206, and 1208. As an example, data feeds and/or event updates may include, but are not limited to, Twitter® feeds, Facebook® updates or real-time updates received from one or more third party information sources and continuous data streams, which may include real-time events related to sensor data applications, financial tickers, network performance measuring tools ( e.g., network monitoring and traffic management applications), clickstream analysis tools, automobile traffic monitoring, and the like. Server 1212 may also include one or more applications to display the data feeds and/or real-time events via one or more display devices of client computing devices 1202, 1204, 1206, and 1208. The examiner notes that GALITSKY teaches consolidating different types (categories) of data received. The examiner notes that TAE-JUNG and GALITSKY are both directed to machine learning and both are reasonably analogous to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified TAE-JUNG’s chatbot to incorporate the constructions database is consolidated by merging constructions based on common categories as taught by GALITSKY [0190] to provide an efficient way to increase users' trust of both particular decision and ML model [0021]).
Regarding claim 11, TAE-JUNG teaches the method of claim 1, however, TAE-JUNG is not relied upon to explicitly teach the constructions database is updated based on changes in usage detected in inputs from users of the computing system. Furthermore, GALITSKY teaches the constructions database is updated based on changes in usage detected in inputs from users of the computing system ([0191] In one set of aspects, databases 1214 and 1216 may include relational databases, such as databases provided by Oracle, that are adapted to store, update, and retrieve data in response to SQL-formatted commands. The examiner notes that GALITSKY teaches adapting (updating) a database in response to a command (usage). The examiner further notes that TAE-JUNG and GALITSKY are both directed to machine learning and both are reasonably analogous to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified TAE-JUNG’s chatbot to incorporate the constructions database is updated based on changes in usage detected in inputs from users of the computing system as taught by GALITSKY [0190] to provide an efficient way to increase users' trust of both particular decision and ML model [0021]).
Claims 16, 18-19 are the method claims corresponding to the system claims 5, 7, and 11 respectively, therefore, they are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 5, 7, and 11.
Claims 6, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAE-JUNG (KR102436666B1), in view of GALITSKY (US20210279424A1), further in view of CHEN (US20210142659A1).
Regarding claim 6, TAE-JUNG teaches the method of claim 5, however, TAE-JUNG is not relied upon to explicitly teach the categories include predetermined common parameter types including days of the week. Furthermore, CHEN teaches the categories include predetermined common parameter types including days of the week ([0041] The compiled historical performance metrics include a perpendicular offset from a baseline, an associated travel speed, traffic volume (vehicles per hour) that have been parsed by segmenting the temporal data into categories of a time-of-day and a day-of-week for the lane-specific travel paths. The examiner notes that TAE-JUNG and CHEN are both directed to data analysis and both are reasonably analogous to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified TAE-JUNG’s chatbot to incorporate the categories include predetermined common parameter types including days of the week as taught by CHEN [0041] to evaluate temporal performance metrics [0041]).
Claim 17 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 6, therefore, it is rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAE-JUNG (KR102436666B1), in view of GALITSKY (US20210279424A1), further in view of BESECKER (US20190163434A1).
Regarding claim 8, TAE-JUNG teaches the method of claim 2, however, TAE-JUNG is not relied upon to explicitly teach:
The computing system comprising a server computing device and a client computing device.
the orchestrator and the constructions database are stored on the client computing device, and the trained generative language model is stored on the server computing device.
Furthermore, GALITSKY teaches The computing system comprising a server computing device and a client computing device ([0182] FIG. 12 depicts a simplified diagram of a distributed system 1200 for implementing one of the aspects. In the illustrated aspect, distributed system 1200 includes one or more client computing devices 1202, 1204, 1206, and 1208, which are configured to execute and operate a client application such as a web browser, proprietary client ( e.g., Oracle Forms), or the like over one or more network(s) 1210. Server 1212 may be communicatively coupled with remote client computing devices 1202, 1204, 1206, and 1208 via network (s) 1210. The examiner notes that TAE-JUNG and GALITSKY are both directed to machine learning and both are reasonably analogous to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified TAE-JUNG’s chatbot implementation to incorporate The computing system comprising a server computing device and a client computing device as taught by GALITSKY [0182] to implement the system using a distributed architecture [0182]).
Furthermore, BESECKER teaches the orchestrator and the constructions database are stored on the client computing device, and the trained generative language model is stored on the server computing device ([0044] Remote computing device 300 may comprise resource manager 320 and/or master resource database 322. Resource manager 320, which may be embodied as any type of firmware, hardware, software, circuitry, and/or combination thereof, may be configured to manage 3D models stored in the master resource database 322. For example, the resource manager 320 may be configured to receive a request from mobile computing device 100 and/or VC computing device 200 that may include identifying information of objects that are to be rendered as 3D models in a virtual content setting (e.g., perhaps to be viewed/experienced in a VR session/environment). Perhaps for example, upon receiving the request, among other scenarios, the resource manager 320 may be configured to retrieve the 3D models from the local resource database 322 and/or transmit them to mobile computing device 100 and/or VC computing device 200 via network 216. The examiner notes that BESECKER teaches hosting a manager and database on a remote client device and a 3D model on a local server. The examiner further notes that TAE-JUNG and BESECKER are both directed to data analysis and both are reasonably analogous to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified TAE-JUNG’s chatbot implementation to incorporate the orchestrator and the constructions database are stored on the client computing device, and the trained generative language model is stored on the server computing device as taught by BESECKER [0044] to enable viewing or experiencing content in a VR session/environment [0044]).
Claims 9-10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAE-JUNG (KR102436666B1), in view of GALITSKY (US20210279424A1), further in view of KONERU (US20240281619A1).
Regarding claim 9, TAE-JUNG teaches the method of claim 2, however, TAE-JUNG is not relied upon to explicitly teach wherein the command is generated by the trained generative language model with a transducer function implementing part-of speech tagging. Furthermore, KONERU teaches wherein the command is generated by the trained generative language model with a transducer function implementing part-of speech tagging ([0037] The LLM 172 can use a variety of techniques such as part-of-speech (POS) tagging, dependency parsing, named entity recognition (NER), and semantic analysis to understand the use case and the context of the one or more conversations or utterances. The examiner notes that TAE-JUNG and KONERU are both directed to machine learning and both are reasonably analogous to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified TAE-JUNG’s chatbot to incorporate wherein the command is generated by the trained generative language model with a transducer function implementing part-of speech tagging as taught by KONERU [0037] to generate use cases labels from one or more conversations or utterances [0037]).
Regarding claim 10, TAE-JUNG teaches the method of claim 9, however, TAE-JUNG is not relied upon to explicitly teach the constructions are formatted as a sequence of semantic components including actions, objects, prepositions, and modifiers. Furthermore, KONERU teaches the constructions are formatted as a sequence of semantic components including actions, objects, prepositions, and modifiers ([0061] An object defined for the virtual assistant comprises a collection of one or more entities. In the example of the pizza assistant, a “food order” is an object, which may include one or more entities selected by a customer such as, for example, a pizza with a base and one or more toppings, one or more beverages, or one or more desserts. This description of the one or more entities or objects may be, for example, specific to the particular enterprise and/or to the enterprises for one of the types of enterprises, such as all pizza shops that are part of the same pizza chain. The examiner notes that KONERU teaches utilizing semantic components to define an object for the virtual assistant. Such components include, for example, an object such as a pizza, a modifier such as a topping, an action such as add, and a preposition such as with. The examiner further notes that TAE-JUNG and KONERU are both directed to machine learning and both are reasonably analogous to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified TAE-JUNG’s chatbot to incorporate the constructions are formatted as a sequence of semantic components including actions, objects, prepositions, and modifiers as taught by KONERU [0061] to define an object for the virtual assistant [0061]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAE-JUNG (KR102436666B1), in view of DOSHI (US20250278607A1), further in view of GALITSKY (US20210279424A1), further in view of HEBERT (US20140136183A1).
Regarding claim 20, TAE-JUNG teaches A computing system for interpreting language ([Page 3, Sec. Description, Para. 8] The problem to be solved by the present invention is to use a chatbot to provide various information necessary for domestic life, receive a query word and utilize both the rulebase-based and AI artificial intelligence-based chatbots. In this case, an object of the present invention is to provide a hybrid chatbot service system and its service method that can provide response data by processing intention analysis for user queries by interworking with AI AI-based chatbot engine).
store a constructions database comprising a plurality of command constructions ([Page 4, line 3] The chatbot server stores the query word in the screen database and then analyzes the query word. You can compare if they match).
receive a plurality of requests including a plurality of messages, respectively, as natural language input from an interaction interface ([Page 3, Sec. Description, Line 24] The hybrid chatbot engine obtains query example data based on the rule base).
input the plurality of messages into a trained generative language model to generate a plurality of language constructions corresponding to the plurality of messages, respectively ([Page 3, Sec. Description, Line 25-26] when the query word and the query example data in the chatbot server do not completely match, the query word is transmitted from the chatbot server, and the response data to the query word is obtained using either an AI-based chatbot dedicated engine or a global AI engine).
However, TAE-JUNG is not relied upon to explicitly teach:
for each of the generated plurality of language constructions, input a prompt into the trained generative language model to inquire how the language constructions was generated, so as to generate a plurality of construction explanations.
incorporate the plurality of construction explanations into the constructions database.
consolidate the constructions database.
based on merging constructions based on common categories.
deploy the constructions database in an agent cache configured to parse a request into semantic components, and translate the semantic components into a structured language format, so as to generate a language construction based on the parsed request.
On the other hand, DOSHI teaches for each of the generated plurality of language constructions, input a prompt into the trained generative language model to inquire how the language constructions was generated, so as to generate a plurality of construction explanations ([0007] determining the user question comprises a request for an explanation of an output of the application. The examiner notes that TAE-JUNG and DOSHI are both directed to machine learning and both are reasonably analogous to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified TAE-JUNG’s chatbot to incorporate for each of the generated plurality of language constructions, input a prompt into the trained generative language model to inquire how the language constructions was generated, so as to generate a plurality of construction explanations as taught by DOSHI [0007] so that users may interact with an IVA with questions concerning features, outputs, or outcomes of the application [0003]).
Furthermore, GALITSKY teaches incorporate the plurality of construction explanations into the constructions database ([0034] The explanation chain manager 124 may be configured to store the explanation chains it generates within database 114. The examiner notes that TAE-JUNG and GALITSKY are both directed to machine learning and both are reasonably analogous to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified TAE-JUNG’s chatbot to incorporate i incorporate the plurality of construction explanations into the constructions database as taught by GALITSKY [0034] to better handle questions and provide complete answers [0022]).
Furthermore, GALITSKY teaches consolidate the constructions database based on merging constructions based on common categories ([0190] In some implementations, server 1212 may include one or more applications to analyze and consolidate data feeds and/or event updates received from users of client computing devices 1202, 1204, 1206, and 1208. As an example, data feeds and/or event updates may include, but are not limited to, Twitter® feeds, Facebook® updates or real-time updates received from one or more third party information sources and continuous data streams, which may include real-time events related to sensor data applications, financial tickers, network performance measuring tools ( e.g., network monitoring and traffic management applications), clickstream analysis tools, automobile traffic monitoring, and the like. Server 1212 may also include one or more applications to display the data feeds and/or real-time events via one or more display devices of client computing devices 1202, 1204, 1206, and 1208. The examiner notes that GALITSKY teaches consolidating different types (categories) of data received. The examiner notes that TAE-JUNG and GALITSKY are both directed to machine learning and both are reasonably analogous to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified TAE-JUNG’s chatbot to incorporate consolidate the constructions database based on merging constructions based on common categories as taught by GALITSKY [0190] to provide an efficient way to increase users' trust of both particular decision and ML model [0021]).
Furthermore, HERBERT teaches deploy the constructions database in an agent cache configured to parse a request into semantic components, and translate the semantic components into a structured language format, so as to generate a language construction based on the parsed request ([0005] Embodiments of the present invention are directed to an arrangement and corresponding method for distributed natural language processing. A set of local data sources is stored on a mobile device. A local natural language understanding (NLU) match module on the mobile device performs natural language processing of a natural language input with respect to the local data sources to determine one or more local interpretation candidates. The examiner notes that TAE-JUNG and HERBERT are both directed to machine learning and both are reasonably analogous to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified TAE-JUNG’s chatbot to incorporate deploy the constructions database in an agent cache configured to parse a request into semantic components, and translate the semantic components into a structured language format, so as to generate a language construction based on the parsed request as taught by HERBERT [0005] to determine one or more local interpretation candidate [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CHEN2 (US20200401662A1)
“HEBERT teaches a method for detecting and communicating semantic changes in revisions of two or more text documents”
GALITSKY2 (US20200034362A1)
“GALITSKY2 teaches a method for translating natural language queries into native database queries”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMCY ALGHAZZY whose telephone number is (571)272-8824. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, OMAR FERNANDEZ RIVAS can be reached on (571) 272-2589. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SHAMCY ALGHAZZY/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights