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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2024 is considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 04/18/2024 are accepted.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites a method and is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following, for which the bolded items are interpreted to encompass steps that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion.
A function recommendation method, comprising: acquiring target input information input by a user during executing of a first application; performing semantic parsing on the target input information to obtain target control information; determining at least one second application that satisfies a recommendation condition based on the target control information; and displaying a shortcut control corresponding to the at least one second application on a display interface of a terminal device.
More specifically, the limitations of ‘a function recommendation method comprising: … performing semantic parsing on the target input information to obtain target control information; determining at least one second application that satisfies a recommendation condition based on the target control information’ may be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a human can mentally evaluate target input information for semantic judgement in order make a judgement on target control information. Also a human can evaluate a recommendation condition against target control information and make a judgement on determining and identifying a second application that would satisfy the condition.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites additional elements/limitations of: ‘acquiring target input information input by a user during executing of a first application’ and ‘displaying a shortcut control corresponding to the at least one second application on a display interface of a terminal device’.
With regards to ‘acquiring target input information input by a user during executing of a first application’, this additional element is considered as adding insignificant extra solution activity (‘Mere Data Gathering’) to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have identified this type of limitation as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
With regards to ‘displaying a shortcut control corresponding to the at least one second application on a display interface of a terminal device’, this additional element is considered as adding insignificant extra solution activity (such as ‘Selecting a particular data source or type to be manipulated’ and/or ‘Data Gathering’) to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g) for obtaining and presenting/displaying information). The courts have identified this type of limitation as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, there are two additional elements:
‘acquiring target input information input by a user during executing of a first application’, which was explained in step 2A, Prong Two to be insignificant extra solution activity (‘Mere Data Gathering’) . The courts have identified this type of limitation is insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
‘displaying a shortcut control corresponding to the at least one second application on a display interface of a terminal device’, , which was explained in step 2A, Prong Two to be insignificant extra solution activity ( ‘Selecting a particular data source or type to be manipulated’ and/or ‘Data Gathering’) . The courts have identified this type of limitation is insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Thus, when considered individually and in combination, these additional elements fail to amount to ‘significantly more’.
Claims 2-18:
With regards to claims 2-18, they recite further judicial exceptions of mental steps (such as ‘performing’, ‘determining’, ‘configuring’, ‘matching’, ‘combining’, ‘taking’ , ‘grouping’, ‘voice recognition model’ - ). They recite additional elements such as (1) opening, input(ing), receiving, acquiring, inputting ; for which are all considered insignificant extra solution activity and 2) ‘displaying’, ‘generate a … icon on the display interface’, for which are considered also insignificant extra solution activity and applying the elements to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer). The courts have found these types of elements are insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and they are also not considered to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 19:
With regards to claim 19, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1. It is noted that it additionally recites ‘a computing and processing device, comprising: a memory with computer readable codes stored therein; and one or more processors, wherein the computing and processing device executes…’, however, this limitation is considered merely reciting the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have identified this type of limitation to be insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and also the courts have identified this limitation to be insufficient to amount to ‘significantly more’ than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 20:
With regards to claim 20, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharifi et al (US Application: US 2017/0098159, published: Apr. 6, 2017, filed: Oct. 1, 2015).
With regards to claim 1, Sharifi teaches a function recommendation method (Abstract, Fig. 7: a computer with processor and memory is implemented to perform the method), comprising:
acquiring target input information input by a user during executing of a first application (paragraph 0044: a user can provide input text as target input information during execution of an application displaying the text );
performing semantic parsing on the target input information to obtain target control information (paragraph 0044: the text is parsed to formulate a query for target control info/suggestion-info);
determining at least one second application that satisfies a recommendation condition based on the target control information (paragraphs 0044 and 0045: at least one second /third application such as a shopping or marketplace application is suggested /recommended on condition of model output); and
displaying a shortcut control corresponding to the at least one second application on a display interface of a terminal device (paragraphs 0044 and 0045 and Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B: a shortcut control displays one or more second, third, fourth, etc… applications).
With regards to claim 2. The function recommendation method according to claim 1, Sharifi teaches wherein after displaying the shortcut control corresponding to the least second application on the display interface of the terminal device, the method further comprises:
opening an application interface of the at least one second application in response to an operation of the user on a first shortcut control (paragraphs 0044 and 0045: a user can open /activate the second application ); and receiving first configuration information input by the user and switching the application interface of the at least one second application to a functional interface for executing the first configuration information (paragraph 0044: a query is used as the first configuration information , and the second application is executed using the first configuration information as a parameter and display result(s)).
With regards to claim 3. The function recommendation method according to claim 1, Sharifi teaches wherein after determining the at least one second application that satisfies the recommendation condition (paragraph 0055: a condition of particular relevance), the method further comprises: performing configuration information identification on the target input information to obtain second configuration information (paragraph 0044: the configuration information includes the parameter data provided to the at least one second application); determining a target application based on the second application and the second configuration information, wherein the target application is a second application capable of executing the target control information according to the second configuration information (paragraph 0044: the target application is the second application that will execute based upon the provided parameter data); determining a target function, wherein the target function is to control the target application to execute instructions corresponding to the target control information, and the target function is set based on the second configuration information (paragraph 0044: the target function is to control the second application to and execute based on the provided parameter data ); and displaying a shortcut control corresponding to the target function on the display interface of the terminal device (Fig. 6A, Fig 6B: shortcut(s) to one or more second application(s) such as ref 620 and 625 are common to first display control(s) and second display control(s) and are displayed at same time in Fig 6B).
With regards to claim 5. The function recommendation method according to claim 1, Sharifi teaches wherein the target input information comprises third input information, and the method comprises: performing configuration information identification on the third input information to obtain second configuration information (paragraphs 0044, 0056: different input information/data is/are supported such as different text: ‘Dark Knight’, as opposed to ‘patio’); opening an application interface of the at least one second application in response to an operation of the user on a first shortcut control (paragraph 0044: the action suggested can include a depicted icon/control, for which when the user interacts with a particular suggestion icon, an application (second application) can be launched based upon the text context); and configuring the at least one second application based on the second configuration information, so as to switch the application interface of the at least one second application to a functional interface for executing the second configuration information (paragraph 0044, 0056: the second application is executed based upon the different input text (i.e. ‘Dark Knight’)).
With regards to claim 7. The function recommendation method according to claim 1, Sharifi teaches wherein the target input information comprises first input information and second input information, and the performing the semantic parsing on the target input information to obtain the target control information comprises: performing the semantic parsing on the first input information to obtain first target control information (paragraph 0056: the first string is parsed ‘Dark Knight’ to obtain visual control(s) of relevant action(s)); and performing the semantic parsing on the second input information to obtain second target control information (paragraph 0056: the second input information is selected query expansion terms such as ‘show times’ to obtain a refined subsequent set of visual control(s) of identified relevant actions); wherein the determining the at least one second application that satisfies the recommendation condition based on the target control information comprises: determining at least one second application for the first input information that satisfies the recommendation condition based on the first target control information (paragraph 0056: a second application can be identified/selected from the action(s) and the action(s) are based upon relevancy condition that was based on interaction of the first target control); and determining at least one second application for the second input information that satisfies the recommendation condition based on the second target control information (paragraph 0056: a second application can be identified /selected from the action(s) and the action(s) are based upon relevancy condition based on interaction of the second target controls ); wherein the displaying the shortcut control corresponding to the at least one second application on the display interface of the terminal device comprises: displaying a shortcut control corresponding to the at least one second application for the second input information and a shortcut control corresponding to the at least one second application for the first input information on the display interface of the terminal device at the same time (Fig. 6A, Fig 6B: shortcut(s) to one or more second application(s) such as ref 620 and 625 are common to first display control(s) and second display control(s) and are displayed at same time in Fig 6B).
With regards to claim 19, Sharifi teaches a computing and processing device, comprising: a memory with computer readable codes stored therein; and one or more processors, wherein the computing and processing device executes the function recommendation method according to claim 1 when the computer readable code is executed by the one or more processors, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 20, Sharifi teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium, storing a computer program comprising computer readable code, which, when executed on a computing and processing device, causes the computing and processing device to execute the function recommendation method according to claim 1, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi et al (US Application: US 2017/0098159, published: Apr. 6, 2017, filed: Oct. 1, 2015) in view of Cronin et al (US Application: US 2023/0169967, published: Jun . 1, 2023, filed: Nov. 30, 2021) .
With regards to claim 4, which depends on claim 3, Sharifi et al teaches wherein the second application, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Sharifi et al does not expressly teach wherein the second application is a countdown application.
Yet Cronin et al teaches wherein the second application is a countdown application (paragraph 0006: a plurality of application/tasks can be suggested and one of the tasks/applications include a timer (interpreted as a countdown-application)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Sharifi et al’s ability to suggest a second application such that the application suggested could have further included a timer specific application, as taught by Cronin et al. The combination would have allowed Sharifi et al to have allowed a user to have easily invoked additional functionality.
With regards to claim 6. The function recommendation method according to claim 5, Sharifi et al teaches wherein the second application, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Sharifi et al does not expressly teach wherein the second application is a countdown application.
Yet Cronin et al teaches wherein the second application is a countdown application (paragraph 0006: a plurality of application/tasks can be suggested and one of the tasks/applications include a timer (interpreted as a countdown-application)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Sharifi et al’s ability to suggest a second application such that the application suggested could have further included a timer specific application, as taught by Cronin et al. The combination would have allowed Sharifi et al to have allowed a user to have easily invoked additional functionality.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi et al (US Application: US 2017/0098159, published: Apr. 6, 2017, filed: Oct. 1, 2015) in view of Jaygarl et al (US Application: US 2019/0066674, published: Feb. 28, 2019, filed: Jul. 19, 2018).
With regards to claim 8. The function recommendation method according to claim 7, Sharifi et al teaches wherein the target input information comprises the first input information and the second input information, and the displaying the shortcut control corresponding to the at least one second application on the display interface of the terminal device comprises: opening an application interface of the at least one second application for the first input information on the display interface in response to an operation of the user on the first shortcut control … and opening an application interface of the at least one second application for the second input information on the display interface, in response to an operation of the user on the second shortcut control., as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7 (and also in the rejection of claim 1, where Sharifi et al was explained in paragraphs 0044 and 0045 to teach one or more of a plurality of second applications that can be invoked based on shortcut interaction and displayed based upon input parameter information), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Sharifi et al does not expressly teach … ; and closing the application interface of the at least one second application for the first input information, and opening an application interface of the at least one second application for the second input information on the display interface …
Yet Jaygarl et al teaches … ; and closing the application interface of the at least one second application for the first input information, and opening an application interface of the at least one second application for the second input information on the display interface … (Fig. 5, paragraph 0179: an application interface of a message sending routine/application includes displaying a contact selection area is presented and after the user selects a contact, this contact selection area is then closed after the user selection and a subsequent message interface is presented based upon second user input/content information to confirm message sending action/task).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Sharifi et al’s ability to open a second application for message sending having first input information, such that the second application closes a displayed portion of message sending, to display an additional interface of message sending as taught by Jaygarl et al. The combination would have allowed Sharifi et al to have efficiently selected and perform a relevant task based upon collective acquisitive of user input.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi et al (US Application: US 2017/0098159, published: Apr. 6, 2017, filed: Oct. 1, 2015) in view of Hwang et al (US Application: US 2020/0045163, published: Feb. 6, 2020, filed: Oct. 11, 2019).
With regards to claim 9. The function recommendation method according to claim 1, Sharifi et al teaches wherein after determining the at least one second application that satisfies the recommendation condition … the target control information … the terminal device… ; displaying the shortcut control corresponding to the at least one second application and a shortcut control corresponding to the third application on the display interface of the terminal device at the same time, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Sharifi et al does not expressly teach the method further comprises: determining a third application that satisfies the recommendation condition based on the target control information when the terminal device is in a network connection state, wherein the third application is a cloud platform application …
Yet Hwang et al teaches determining a third application that satisfies the recommendation condition based on the target control information when the terminal device is in a network connection state, wherein the third application is a cloud platform application (Abstract, paragraph 0036-0037: a shortcut to an application is suggested/recommended based on context input information when a terminal/electronic device is networked/connected to another device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Sharifi et al’s ability to determine an application that satisfies a recommendation condition , such that the recommendation condition for an application could have further included a cloud platform application based on network state, as taught by Hwang et al. The combination would have efficiently and relevantly recommended an application … based on a recognized situation of an electronic device user.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi et al (US Application: US 2017/0098159, published: Apr. 6, 2017, filed: Oct. 1, 2015) in view of Qian et al (US Patent: 8116234, issued: Feb. 14, 2012, filed: Jan. 31, 2011).
With regards to claim 10. The function recommendation method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: … generating a … icon on the display interface of the terminal device ; and displaying a .. interface on the display interface of the terminal device in response to an interactive operation between the user and the … setting icon, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Sharifi et al does not expressly teach displaying prompt information on the display interface of the terminal device when the terminal device is in a non-network connection state, wherein the prompt information is used for prompting the user to check a network state of the terminal device; generating a network setting icon on the display interface of the terminal device; and displaying a network setting interface on the display interface of the terminal device in response to an interactive operation between the user and the network setting icon.
Yet Qian et al teaches displaying prompt information on the display interface of the terminal device when the terminal device is in a non-network connection state, wherein the prompt information is used for prompting the user to check a network state of the terminal device; generating a network setting icon on the display interface of the terminal device; and displaying a network setting interface on the display interface of the terminal device in response to an interactive operation between the user and the network setting icon (Fig. 5, column 5, lines 45-60: a non-continuous (disrupted) network state is identified and a prompt is displayed to a user having an interactive button/icon. The user interacts/operates the icon/button and a network settings interface is displayed that can display information to the user for how to apply/change network settings/configuration(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Sharifi et al’s ability to recommend an application with an icon based on context input, and allow a user to display the application in response to interaction with the application icon, such that the context would have been modified to further include identifying a non-network connection state and the type of application recommended would include a network setting application, as taught by Qian et al. The combination would have allowed Sharifi et al to have provided the user with adequate support when problems are detected on a network (Qian et al, column 1, lines 34-40).
Claim(s) 11, 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi et al (US Application: US 2017/0098159, published: Apr. 6, 2017, filed: Oct. 1, 2015) in view of Hirabayashi et al (US Application: US 2015/0135065, published: May 14, 2015, filed: May 23, 2014).
With regards to claim 11. The function recommendation method according to claim 1, Sharifi et al teaches wherein the determining the at least one second application that satisfies the recommendation condition based on the target control information … acquiring the at least one second application that satisfies the recommendation condition … , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Sharifi et al does not expressly teach … comprises: matching the target control information with a plurality of applications in the terminal device to obtain first matching degrees; and acquiring the at least one second application that satisfies the recommendation condition based on the first matching degrees.
Yet Hirabayashi et al teaches matching the target control information with a plurality of [named entity] in the terminal device to obtain first matching degrees; and acquiring the at least one second application that satisfies the recommendation condition based on the first matching degrees (Fig. 7, Fig. 15, paragraph 0089: identified named entities are recognized based upon matching degrees/similarity with the target input information. The matched entities are displayed when they are deemed greater than a threshold amount of similarity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Sharifi et al’s ability to determine/identify a named-entity (second application) that satisfies a recommendation condition and displaying an interactive icon /control to shortcut referencing the named entity deemed as recommended (second application), such that the recommendation condition for referencing the named entity is based on matching degrees against a plurality of identified named entities with respect to input target and threshold match degree, as taught by Hirabayashi et al. The combination would have Sharifi et al to have efficiently provided/notified the user of particular relevant named entities that are deemed to match target input.
With regards to claim 12. The function recommendation method according to claim 1, the combination of Sharifi et al and Hirabayashi et al teaches wherein after obtaining the target control information, the method further comprises: matching the target control information with a plurality of applications in the terminal device to obtain first matching degrees; and acquiring at least one candidate second application that satisfies the recommendation condition based on the first matching degrees, wherein the recommendation condition is that the first matching degree is greater than a first matching threshold; and sequentially displaying a shortcut control corresponding to the at least one candidate second application on the display interface of the terminal device according to a sequence of the first matching degrees of the at least one candidate second application (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 11, the combination of Sharifi et al and Hirabayashi et al teaches the named application(s) entit(ies) are identified based upon a matching degree threshold , and the named application(s) are displayed/provided to the user for user selection), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 16. The function recommendation method according to claim 1, the combination of Sharifi et al and Hirabayashi et al teaches wherein the performing the semantic parsing on the target input information to obtain the target control information comprises: acquiring at least one clause based on the target input information; performing word segmentation on a clause in the target input information to obtain a plurality of segmented words; matching each of the plurality of segmented words with candidate control information to obtain a second matching degree; and taking candidate control information with a second matching degree greater than a second matching threshold as the target control information(as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 11, the combination of Sharifi et al and Hirabayashi et al teaches the named application(s) entit(ies) are identified based upon a matching degree threshold , and the named application(s) are displayed/provided to the user for user selection. It is further noted claim 16 does not depend upon claim 12, and the ‘second matching degree’ and ‘second matching threshold’ is interpreted as ‘a matching degree’ and ‘a matching threshold’, rather than a plurality of matching degrees and a plurality of matching thresholds), and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi et al (US Application: US 2017/0098159, published: Apr. 6, 2017, filed: Oct. 1, 2015) in view of Hirabayashi et al (US Application: US 2015/0135065, published: May 14, 2015, filed: May 23, 2014) in view of Zhang et al (US Patent: 10255493, issued: Apr. 9, 2019).
With regards to claim 13. The function recommendation method according to claim 1, Sharifi et al teaches wherein the method further comprises: acquiring the target input information input by the user during the executing of the first application …; determining at least one of the second applications that satisfies the recommendation condition based on the target control information; and displaying the shortcut control corresponding to the at least one second application on the application interface of the handwriting application.
However Sharifi et al does not expressly teach … wherein the first application is a handwriting application, the target input information is handwriting input information, and the handwriting input information is text information obtained by character recognition for handwriting trajectory point information; performing the semantic parsing on the handwriting input information to obtain the target control information.
Yet …Hirabayashi teaches wherein the first application is a handwriting application, the target input information is handwriting input information, and the handwriting input information is text information obtained by character recognition for handwriting trajectory point information; performing the … parsing on the handwriting input information to obtain the target control information (Fig. 7, Fig. 15, paragraph 0089: identified named entities are recognized based upon matching degrees/similarity with the target input information having input stroke/(digital ink trajectory) content. The matched entities are displayed when they are deemed greater than a threshold amount of similarity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Sharifi et al’s ability to process input in a first application and suggest a second application with a short cut control based upon the input and recommendation condition such that the first application supports handwriting input and the handwriting input is translated to text information and the suggestion is based upon text obtained from the input, as taught by Hirabayashi et al. The combination would have allowed Sharifi et al to have efficiently provided/notified the user of particular relevant named entities that are deemed to match target input.
However the combination of Sharifi et al and Hirabayashi et al does not expressly teach performing the semantic parsing on the handwriting input information … to obtain information … .
Yet Zhang et al teaches performing the semantic parsing on the handwriting input information … to obtain information … (claim 1, column 5, lines 17-27: syntactic grouping is performed for handwriting stroke data is performed as part of analysis to yield. The stroke data is formed, processed/recognized based on coordinates points/locations of ink data forming strokes ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Sharifi et al and Hirabayashi et al’s ability to process/parse handwriting stroke data to recognize text entit(ies), such that the parsing would include syntactical analysis of the handwriting strokes, as taught by Zhang et al. The combination would have allowed Sharifi et al and Hirabayashi et al to have enhanced user experience by improving upon recognition and identification of how ink strokes are handled (more closely to the user’s original intent).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi et al (US Application: US 2017/0098159, published: Apr. 6, 2017, filed: Oct. 1, 2015) in view of Hirabayashi et al (US Application: US 2015/0135065, published: May 14, 2015, filed: May 23, 2014) in view of Zhang et al (US Patent: 10255493, issued: Apr. 9, 2019) in view of Dixon et al (US Application: US 2014/0363082, published: Dec. 11, 2014, filed: May 30, 2014).
With regards to claim 14. The function recommendation method according to claim 13, the combination of Sharifi et al, Hirabayashi et al and Zhang et al teaches wherein the handwritten input information is acquired by: acquiring the handwriting trajectory point information input by the user, wherein the handwriting trajectory point information comprises at least one of: coordinate values of trajectory points, timestamps of the trajectory points, and states of the trajectory points (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 13, coordinate ink data is acquired and the coordinate ink data form strokes/handwriting-lines), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … acquiring a handwriting trajectory line graph based on the handwriting trajectory point information; inputting the handwriting trajectory point information into a first branch of a character recognition network to obtain a first input feature, wherein the first input feature comprises time information of the trajectory points of the handwriting trajectory point information; inputting the handwriting trajectory line graph into a second branch of the character recognition network to obtain a second input feature, wherein the second input feature does not comprise the time information of the trajectory points of the handwriting trajectory point information; and combining the first input feature with the second input feature to obtain the handwritten input information.
Yet Dixon et al teaches … acquiring a handwriting trajectory line graph based on the handwriting trajectory point information; inputting the handwriting trajectory point information into a first branch of a character recognition network to obtain a first input feature, wherein the first input feature comprises time information of the trajectory points of the handwriting trajectory point information; inputting the handwriting trajectory line graph into a second branch of the character recognition network to obtain a second input feature, wherein the second input feature does not comprise the time information of the trajectory points of the handwriting trajectory point information; and combining the first input feature with the second input feature to obtain the handwritten input information (Abstract, Fig 17B-Fig 17F: handwriting lines (interpreted as handwriting line ‘graph’) are acquired according to time/stroke order and each stroke is inputted into a character recognition network to produce a suggestion in ref 806, a trajectory line graph/stroke (ref 1718) can be assigned not in time order to correspond to a particular stroke (such as 1710), but instead is assigned to a cluster of strokes in 1702 based on location and distance, and the combination of the clusters shown in Figure 17C is then combined to provide a subsequent suggestion in 806).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Sharifi et al, Hirabayashi et al and Zhang et al’s ability to process coordinate ink data as handwriting strokes, such that even though some strokes can be organized/group by time, other strokes can be grouped by other criteria (location and distance), as taught by Dixon et al. The combination would have allowed implemented an efficient and accurate way to process handwriting input (Dixon et al, paragraph 0008).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi et al (US Application: US 2017/0098159, published: Apr. 6, 2017, filed: Oct. 1, 2015) in view of Bright (US Application: US 20190012714, published: Jan .10, 2019, filed: Jul. 10, 2017).
With regards to claim 15. The function recommendation method according to claim 1, Sharifi et al teaches wherein the target input information is voice input information, and the voice input information is acquired by: acquiring voice information input by the user (paragraph 0072: voice input is received);
However Sharifi et al does not expressly teach … performing feature extraction on the voice information to obtain voice features; and decoding the voice features based on a voice recognition model to obtain the voice input information.
Yet Bright teaches … performing feature extraction on the voice information to obtain voice features; and decoding the voice features based on a voice recognition model to obtain the voice input information (paragraph 0089 and 0093: features are extracted from speech/audio and the features are decoded using an acoustic model and also language model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Sharifi et al’s ability to extract voice data from input to provide suggestion(s)/recommendation(s), such that the voice data is further processed through feature extraction and decoding as taught by Bright. The combination would have provided a better user experience by intelligently assessing a customer’s interests in an efficient manner and delivered content that fits the customer’s interests (paragraph 0005).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi et al (US Application: US 2017/0098159, published: Apr. 6, 2017, filed: Oct. 1, 2015) in view of Hirabayashi et al (US Application: US 2015/0135065, published: May 14, 2015, filed: May 23, 2014) in view of Rizk (US Application: US 2023/0080396, published: Mar. 16, 2023, filed: Sep. 15, 2021).
With regards to claim 17. The function recommendation method according to claim 16, Sharifi et al and Hirabayashi et al teaches wherein the candidate control information is acquired, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 16, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Sharifi et al and Hirabayashi et al does not expressly teach … by: acquiring a function type of each application in the terminal device; grouping all of applications in the terminal device according to the functional type of each of the applications in the terminal device to obtain at least one application cluster, wherein functional types of applications in each application cluster are the same; and taking a function type corresponding to each application cluster as one of the candidate control information.
Yet Rizk teaches by: acquiring a function type of each application in the terminal device; grouping all of applications in the terminal device according to the functional type of each of the applications in the terminal device to obtain at least one application cluster, wherein functional types of applications in each application cluster are the same; and taking a function type corresponding to each application cluster as one of the candidate control information (paragraphs 0057 and 0109: application type is acquired and clustered/grouped, such that a candidate application can be identified /suggested).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Sharifi et al and Hirabayashi et al’s abiity to identify and recommend an application based upon input, such that the application is identified and recommended from information associated with clustered applications based on type, as taught by Rizk. The combination would have allowed Sharifi et al to have recommended items to users that are dynamically tailored to …a users’ characteristics and preferences, yielding more accurate recommendations.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi et al (US Application: US 2017/0098159, published: Apr. 6, 2017, filed: Oct. 1, 2015) in view of Hirabayashi et al (US Application: US 2015/0135065, published: May 14, 2015, filed: May 23, 2014) and in view of Agarwal et al (US Application: US 20190080225, published: Mar. 14, 2019, filed: Mar. 5, 2018).
With regards to claim 18. The function recommendation method according to claim 16, Sharifi et al and Hirabayashi et al teaches wherein after obtaining the plurality of segmented words … acquire the target control information, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 16, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … method further comprises: taking a left segmented word and a right segmented word corresponding to each segmented word in the clause as classification input data to obtain a classification input data set; and inputting the classification input data set into a classification model, and performing semantic parsing on the classification input data set based on the classification model to acquire the target … information.
Yet Agarwal et al teaches … method further comprises: taking a left segmented word and a right segmented word corresponding to each segmented word in the clause as classification input data to obtain a classification input data set; and inputting the classification input data set into a classification model, and performing semantic parsing on the classification input data set based on the classification model to acquire the target … information (Abstract, paragraphs 0026, 0028, 0036: a left word and a right word(s) are segmented with respect to an input clause and target information is acquired according to identified target class based upon parsing utilizing a BiLSTM network that semantically addresses prior and subsequent word contexts).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Sharifi and Hirabayashi et al’s ability to segment words to yield a predicted output, such that the words segmented are further analyzed in context with prior and subsequent words on an input to yield the predicted output as taught by Agarwal et al. The combination would have allowed produced answers to questions in a time efficient manner, and reduced burden for obtaining the answers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhu et al (US Application: US 20190324780): This reference teaches contextual auto-completion in an assistant system.
Bang et al (US Patent: 11252149): This reference teaches resource management for dialog-driven applications.
Sharma (US Patent: 11343378): This reference teaches dynamically navigating interactive communication systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172