Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/08/2025 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
3. This Office Action is in response to the filing with the office dated 12/08/2025.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 have been amended. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent claims. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to amendment/arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more, have been fully considered. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. See response to arguments section. The rejection has been maintained.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(i) and 103(a) but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Response to 101 Rejection
6. Applicants arguments on page 9 regarding claim 1 states “Independent claims 1, 9 and/or 17 are amended based upon the proposed claim amendments and/or the feedback of the Examiner and are therefore believed to overcome the rejection. Therefore, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested”
Applicants arguments on page 11 regarding claim 1 states “the claims clearly integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application” and on page 12 states “Accordingly, claim 1 recites significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 is patent eligible under Step 2B of Alice, and the rejection should be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant as, Claim 1 recites a mental process because the steps recite the actions of storing and manipulating data but is recited at a high level of generality that merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. See MPEP 2106(a)(2)(III). For example, claim 1 recites limitations of receiving a query and generating a response based on the query. The “generating…”, “executing the command…”, “analyzing….” are recited at a high level of generality and do not place meaningful limits on the abstract idea which is a task that can be performed by a human with the use of the computer as a tool. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. and/or There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to look at a query and generate a time constraint determination, based on the time determined time format identify the subset of data and generate a response, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Further, the amended claim limitation “comprising a first function corresponding to a data management system language, based upon a set of information comprising the time- sensitive query” is an additional element which is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations describe “generating…”, “executing the command…”, “analyzing….”. While claims 1, 9 and 17 recite additional components in the form of “language model”, “processor-executable instructions”, “memory”, these components are recited at a high level of generality, which do not add meaningful limits on the recited abstract idea to integrate it into a practical application by providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology, implementing the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor applying the abstract idea in some meaningful way beyond linking its use to computer technology. See 2019 PEG. The additional elements “receiving…”, “generating a response” amount to mere data gathering steps which are insignificant extra-solution activity. Combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using series of steps and outputting the result of the mental process. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
claims are analyzed to determine whether they recite significantly more than the abstract idea. In other words, it is determined whether the claims provide an inventive concept. In this case, do not recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations are steps involving processes that can be practically performed by a human with the aid of pen and paper, or as explained above, using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. For example, a The “receiving…”, “generating a response” elements that were identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering and outputting when re-evaluated still does not provide significantly more. Considering the additional elements in combination and the claim as a whole does not change the analysis, and does not amount to significantly more. Thus the claims are abstract.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Determining whether claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 involves a two-step analysis. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to the statutory categories of invention. Step 2 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2 is divided into two prongs, with the first prong having a part 1 and part 2. See MPEP 2106; See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Pursuant to Step 1, claims 9-16 recite a machine-readable medium which are directed to the statutory category of a manufacture. Claims 17-20 recite a computing device, which are directed to a machine.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Under the 2019 PEG, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Here, claims 1, 12 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea categorized under mental processes. Courts consider a mental process if it “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” MPEP 2016(a)(2)(III). Courts also consider a mental process as one that can be performed in the human mind and is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. MPEP 2016(a)(2)(III)(C)(3). Claim 1 recites a mental process because the steps recite the actions of storing and manipulating data but is recited at a high level of generality that merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. See MPEP 2106(a)(2)(III). For example, claim 1 recites limitations of receiving a query and generating a response based on the query. The “generating…”, “executing the command…”, “analyzing….” , “comprising…”are recited at a high level of generality and do not place meaningful limits on the abstract idea which is a task that can be performed by a human with the use of the computer as a tool. These limitations are essentially steps of generating and manipulating data at a high level of generality, which can be performed by a person using a computer as a tool.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. In this case, as explained above, claims 1, 9 and 17 merely recite a mental process. These limitations describe “generating…”, “executing the command…”, “analyzing….”, “comprising…” While claims 1, 9 and 17 recite additional components in the form of “language model”, “processor-executable instructions”, “memory”, these components are recited at a high level of generality, which do not add meaningful limits on the recited abstract idea to integrate it into a practical application by providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology, implementing the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor applying the abstract idea in some meaningful way beyond linking its use to computer technology. See 2019 PEG. The additional elements “receiving…”, “generating a response” amount to mere data gathering steps which are insignificant extra-solution activity. Combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using series of steps and outputting the result of the mental process. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether they recite significantly more than the abstract idea. In other words, it is determined whether the claims provide an inventive concept. In this case, claims 1, 9 and 17 do not recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations are steps involving processes that can be practically performed by a human with the aid of pen and paper, or as explained above, using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. For example, a The “receiving…”, “comprising…”, “generating a response” elements that were identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering and outputting when re-evaluated still does not provide significantly more. Considering the additional elements in combination and the claim as a whole does not change the analysis, and does not amount to significantly more. Thus the claims are abstract.
Claims 2, 10 and 18 recite “generating, based upon one or more characteristics of the data structure, a data structure template…” is a process, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper and likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to look at the query and/ or utilize a training language model generate characteristic, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13 and 19 recite “generating the response comprises: using a second language model ….” are elements that were identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering and outputting when re-evaluated still does not provide significantly more. Considering the additional elements in combination and the claim as a whole does not change the analysis, and does not amount to significantly more. Thus the claims are abstract. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 6, 14 and 20 recite “displaying the response via a client device.” are elements that were identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering and outputting when re-evaluated still does not provide significantly more. Considering the additional elements in combination and the claim as a whole does not change the analysis, and does not amount to significantly more. Thus the claims are abstract. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 15 recites, “wherein: the set of information comprises a current date” is a process, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper and likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user utilize the current date, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 8 and 16 recites, “wherein: the data structure comprises a relational database” is a process, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper and likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, access the data from different tables in a database. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein; Mark Edward (US 20150348541 A1) in view of Cohen; Jordan Rian (US 20190103107 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Epstein; Mark Edward (US 20150348541 A1) teaches, receiving a feature-sensitive query (Fig. 4, Paragraph [0041] discloses, receiving a query “show flights from Mass to LAX to LAX on January 26, 2015” (Examiner interprets time-sensitive query as date/ time information in the query);
using a first language model to generate an executable time constraint determination command, comprising a first executable function in a data management system language, based upon a set of information comprising the time-sensitive query (Fig. 4, Paragraph [0042] discloses, determining a time constraint using a model based on the query. Also see [0051]);
and generating a response to the time-sensitive query based upon the subset of data (Fig. 4 Paragraph [0048] discloses generating a response based on the user query. Also see [0077]).
Epstein et al fails to explicitly teach, executing the executable time constraint determination command according to the data management system language to determine a time constraint associated with the time-sensitive query; analyzing a data structure based upon the time constraint to identify a subset of data, of the data structure, relevant to the time constraint
Cohen; Jordan Rian (US 20190103107 A1) teaches, executing the executable time constraint determination command according to the data management system language to determine a time constraint associated with the time-sensitive query (Paragraph [0041] discloses, determining a time constraint by searching the databases. [0054] discloses, time constraint from the user query, which includes the time sensitive query (Examiner interprets user defined time constraint as not before 2 pm, before 8 am from the time-sensitive query, from the query, such as “On any Wednesday and not before 2 pm, or Thursday June 8 before 8 am”. Also see [0044], [0045], [0074]);
analyzing a data structure based upon the time constraint to identify a subset of data, of the data structure, relevant to the time constraint (Paragraphs [0044], [0045] discloses, identifying the subset of data relevant to the time constraints specified by the user);
Epstein et al also teaches, and generating a response to the time-sensitive query based upon the subset of data (Paragraph [0055], [0056] discloses, combining the logical connectives with the time elements and generating a response based on the intersection of the periodic set and the connectives. Also see [0086]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Epstein et al by executing the executable time constraint determination command according to the data management system language to determine a time constraint associated with the time-sensitive query; analyzing a data structure based upon the time constraint to identify a subset of data, of the data structure, relevant to the time constraint, as taught by Cohen et al (Paragraphs [0041], [0044], [0045], [0055], [0056]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by understanding equivalence, an automated assistant may simplify temporal constraints, allowing constraint processing with reduced computational resources as compared to the processing of unsimplified constraints, while inference may allow the automated assistant to provide suggestions in accordance with user requests as taught by Cohen et al (Paragraph [0017]).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Epstein et al and Cohen et al teach, the method of claim 1.
Epstein et al further teaches, comprising: generating, based upon one or more characteristics of the data structure, a data structure template, wherein at least one of: the set of information comprises the data structure template; or the method comprises training a language model using the data structure template to generate the first language model (Paragraphs [0034]-[0038] discloses, building/ generating one or more characteristics/ concepts of the data structure comprising different training data/ data structure template).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Epstein et al and Cohen et al teach, the method of claim 1.
Epstein et al further teaches, wherein generating the response comprises: using a second language model to generate the response based upon: the subset of data; and the time-sensitive query (Fig. 1, Paragraphs [0041], [0042] discloses, generating a response using different language models from the query).
Cohen also further teaches, using a second language model to generate the response based upon: the subset of data; and the time-sensitive query (Paragraph [0055], [0056] discloses, combining the logical connectives with the time elements and generating a response based on the intersection of the periodic set and the connectives. Also see [0086]).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Epstein et al and Cohen et al teach, the method of claim 3.
Cohen et al further teaches, wherein: the second language model is the same as the first language model (Paragraphs [0106], [0107] discloses, the second language model is the same as the first language model, by detecting the parsing the query based on the previously trained natural language processing module).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Epstein et al and Cohen et al teach, the method of claim 3.
Epstein et al further teaches, wherein: the second language model is different than the first language model (Paragraph [0041], [0042] discloses that the second language model is different from first language model, which is <time> from the time category is different from the <MONTH> <DAY> <YEAR> category).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Epstein et al and Cohen et al teach, the method of claim 1.
Epstein et al further teaches, comprising: displaying the response via a client device (Paragraph [0077] displaying information to the user.
Regarding dependent claim 7, Epstein et al and Cohen et al teach, the method of claim 1.
Cohen et al further teaches, wherein: the set of information comprises a current date (Paragraph [0068] discloses, the dates are identified based on the current date and time of the query)
Regarding dependent claim 8, Epstein et al and Cohen et al teach, the method of claim 1.
Epstein et al further teaches, wherein: the data structure comprises a relational database (Paragraph [0034] discloses, accessing different related tables. Examiner interprets a relational database as a type of database that stores and provides access to data points that are related to one another).
Regarding independent claim 9, Epstein; Mark Edward (US 20150348541 A1) teaches, a non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that when executed cause performance of operations (Paragraph [0073]), the operations comprising: receiving a feature-sensitive query(Fig. 4, Paragraph [0041] discloses, receiving a query “show flights from Mass to LAX to LAX on January 26, 2015” (Examiner interprets time-sensitive query as date/ time information in the query);
using a first language model to generate an executable feature constraint determination command, comprising a first executable function in(Fig. 4, Paragraph [0042] discloses, determining a time constraint using a model based on the query. Also see [0051]);
and generating a response to the feature-sensitive query based upon the subset of data (Fig. 4 Paragraph [0048] discloses generating a response based on the user query. Also see [0077])
Epstein et al fails to explicitly teach, executing the executable feature constraint determination command according to the data management system language to determine a feature constraint associated with the feature-sensitive query; analyzing a data structure based upon the feature constraint to identify a subset of data, of the data structure, relevant to the feature constraint.
Cohen; Jordan Rian (US 20190103107 A1) teaches, executing the executable time constraint determination command according to the data management system language to determine a time constraint associated with the time-sensitive query (Paragraph [0041] discloses, determining a time constraint by searching the databases. [0054] discloses, time constraint from the user query, which includes the time sensitive query (Examiner interprets user defined time constraint as not before 2 pm, before 8 am from the time-sensitive query, from the query, such as “On any Wednesday and not before 2 pm, or Thursday June 8 before 8 am”. Also see [0044], [0045], [0074]);
analyzing a data structure based upon the time constraint to identify a subset of data, of the data structure, relevant to the time constraint (Paragraphs [0044], [0045] discloses, identifying the subset of data relevant to the time constraints specified by the user);
Epstein et al also teaches, and generating a response to the time-sensitive query based upon the subset of data (Paragraph [0055], [0056] discloses, combining the logical connectives with the time elements and generating a response based on the intersection of the periodic set and the connectives. Also see [0086]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Epstein et al by executing the executable time constraint determination command according to the data management system language to determine a time constraint associated with the time-sensitive query; analyzing a data structure based upon the time constraint to identify a subset of data, of the data structure, relevant to the time constraint, as taught by Cohen et al (Paragraphs [0041], [0044], [0045], [0055], [0056]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by understanding equivalence, an automated assistant may simplify temporal constraints, allowing constraint processing with reduced computational resources as compared to the processing of unsimplified constraints, while inference may allow the automated assistant to provide suggestions in accordance with user requests as taught by Cohen et al (Paragraph [0017]).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Epstein et al and Cohen et al teach, the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 9.
Epstein et al further teaches, the operations comprising: generating, based upon one or more characteristics of the data structure, a data structure template, wherein at least one of: the set of information comprises the data structure template; or the operations comprise training a language model using the data structure template to generate the first language model (Paragraphs [0034]-[0038] discloses, building/ generating one or more characteristics/ concepts of the data structure comprising different training data/ data structure template).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Epstein et al and Cohen et al teach, the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 9.
Epstein et al further teaches, wherein generating the response comprises: using a second language model to generate the response based upon: the subset of data; and the feature-sensitive query (Fig. 1, Paragraphs [0041], [0042] discloses, generating a response using different language models from the query).
Cohen also further teaches, wherein generating the response comprises: using a second language model to generate the response based upon: the subset of data; and the time-sensitive query (Paragraph [0055], [0056] discloses, combining the logical connectives with the time elements and generating a response based on the intersection of the periodic set and the connectives. Also see [0086]).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Epstein et al and Cohen et al teach, the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 11.
Cohen et al further teaches, wherein: the second language model is the same as the first language model (Paragraphs [0106], [0107] discloses, the second language model is the same as the first language model, by detecting the parsing the query based on the previously trained natural language processing module).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Epstein et al and Cohen et al teach, the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 11.
Epstein et al further teaches, wherein: the second language model is different than the first language model (Paragraph [0041], [0042] discloses that the second language model is different from first language model, which is <time> from the time category is different from the <MONTH> <DAY> <YEAR> category).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Epstein et al and Cohen et al teach, the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 9.
Epstein et al further teaches, the operations comprising: displaying the response via a client device (Paragraph [0077] displaying information to the user.
Regarding dependent claim 15, Epstein et al and Cohen et al teach, the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 9.
Cohen et al further teaches, wherein: the set of information comprises a current date (Paragraph [0068] discloses, the dates are identified based on the current date and time of the query).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Epstein et al and Cohen et al teach, the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 9.
Epstein et al further teaches, wherein: the data structure comprises a relational database (Paragraph [0034] discloses, accessing different related tables. Examiner interprets a relational database as a type of database that stores and provides access to data points that are related to one another).
Regarding independent claim 1, Epstein; Mark Edward (US 20150348541 A1) teaches, a computing device comprising: a processor; and memory comprising processor-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause performance of operations (Paragraph [0073]), the operations comprising: receiving a feature-sensitive query (Fig. 4, Paragraph [0041] discloses, receiving a query “show flights from Mass to LAX to LAX on January 26, 2015” (Examiner interprets time-sensitive query as date/ time information in the query);
using a first language model to generate an executable feature constraint determination command, comprising a first executable function infeature-sensitive query(Fig. 4, Paragraph [0042] discloses, determining a time constraint using a model based on the query. Also see [0051]);
and generating a response to the feature-sensitive query based upon the subset of data (Fig. 4 Paragraph [0048] discloses generating a response based on the user query. Also see [0077]).
Epstein et al fails to explicitly teach, executing the executable feature constraint determination command according to the data management system language to determine a feature constraint associated with the feature-sensitive query; analyzing a data structure based upon the feature constraint to identify a subset of data, of the data structure, relevant to the feature constraint.
Cohen; Jordan Rian (US 20190103107 A1) teaches, executing the executable feature constraint determination command according to the data management system language to determine a feature constraint associated with the feature-sensitive query (Paragraph [0041] discloses, determining a time constraint by searching the databases. [0054] discloses, time constraint from the user query, which includes the time sensitive query (Examiner interprets user defined time constraint as not before 2 pm, before 8 am from the time-sensitive query, from the query, such as “On any Wednesday and not before 2 pm, or Thursday June 8 before 8 am”. Also see [0044], [0045], [0074]);
analyzing a data structure based upon the feature constraint to identify a subset of data, of the data structure, relevant to the feature constraint (Paragraphs [0044], [0045] discloses, identifying the subset of data relevant to the time constraints specified by the user);
Epstein et al also teaches, and generating a response to the time-sensitive query based upon the subset of data (Paragraph [0055], [0056] discloses, combining the logical connectives with the time elements and generating a response based on the intersection of the periodic set and the connectives. Also see [0086]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Epstein et al by executing the executable time constraint determination command according to the data management system language to determine a time constraint associated with the time-sensitive query; analyzing a data structure based upon the time constraint to identify a subset of data, of the data structure, relevant to the time constraint, as taught by Cohen et al (Paragraphs [0041], [0044], [0045], [0055], [0056]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by understanding equivalence, an automated assistant may simplify temporal constraints, allowing constraint processing with reduced computational resources as compared to the processing of unsimplified constraints, while inference may allow the automated assistant to provide suggestions in accordance with user requests as taught by Cohen et al (Paragraph [0017]).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Epstein et al and Cohen et al et al teach, the computing device of claim 17.
Epstein et al further teaches, the operations comprising: generating, based upon one or more characteristics of the data structure, a data structure template, wherein at least one of: the set of information comprises the data structure template; or the operations comprise training a language model using the data structure template to generate the first language model (Paragraphs [0034]-[0038] discloses, building/ generating one or more characteristics/ concepts of the data structure comprising different training data/ data structure template).
Regarding dependent claim 19, Epstein et al and Cohen et al teach, the computing device of claim 17.
Epstein et al further teaches, wherein generating the response comprises: using a second language model to generate the response based upon: the subset of data; and the feature-sensitive query (Fig. 1, Paragraphs [0041], [0042] discloses, generating a response using different language models from the query).
Regarding dependent claim 20, Epstein et al and Cohen et al teach, the computing device of claim 17.
Epstein et al further teaches, the operations comprising: displaying the response via a client device (Paragraph [0077] displaying information to the user.
Closest Prior Art
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Cohen; Jordan Rian (US 20190103107 A1) teaches, A method includes receiving an utterance at a computerized automated assistant system, and detecting, via a date/time constraint module of the computerized automated assistant system, one or more constraints in the utterance associated with a date or time. The utterance is associated with a domain. The method further comprises generating, via the date/time constraint module, a periodic set for each of the one or more constraints associated with the date or time, and combining, via the date/time constraint module, the one or more periodic sets. The method further comprises processing, via a dialogue manager module of the computerized automated assistant system, the combined periodic sets to determine an action, and executing the action at the computerized automated assistant system.
Smyros; Athena Ann (US 20180075020 A1) teaches, For language elements that indicate or suggest time, such as adverbs, these also contain date and time information that can be used to quantify time for a single piece of text or for an entire repository. This quantification of time can then be used by many applications, such as a mobile device that needs to know when to execute a command or when an investigator is trying to piece together a chain of events from different documents (Abstract).
10. Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior arts of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and Figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior arts or disclosed by the examiner. It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN RAJAPUTRA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4669. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi (571) 272-4078 can be reached. 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.
/S. R./
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163