DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s reply dated December 31, 2025, including arguments and amendments.
Claims 1 – 11 are currently pending, of which claims 1, 9, and 10 are independent.
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.
Claims 1 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al., U.S. PG-Pub. No. 2008/0077570 (hereafter, “Tang”) in view of Collins-Thompson et al., U.S. PG-Pub. No. 2012/0233140 (hereafter, “Collins”).
As to Claim 1, Tang discloses: an information processing apparatus comprising
at least one processor ([1117], “Each computer in a "system" typically includes a processor subsystem which communicates with a memory subsystem and peripheral devices including a file storage subsystem.”), the at least one processor performing:
an input acquisition process for acquiring a first character string indicating a query from a user (Fig. 12, described at [0069], showing user input as text for a query); and
a generation process for referring to a term database and generating a second character string which is obtained by replacing at least part of the first character string with a term from the term database ([0030]: “… the database further comprises a list of synonymous words and phrases;” and [0152], referring to entered text being parsed and replaced by stemming and stem merging to generate a new query string).
Tang does not appear to explicitly disclose: an evaluation acquisition process for acquiring evaluation information which indicates an evaluation with respect to a query result in response to a query indicated by the first character string or by the second character string, indicating a good evaluation or a bad evaluation by the user; or an update process for updating the term database using one or more terms included in the first character string or the second character string on the basis of the evaluation information.
Collins discloses: an evaluation acquisition process for acquiring evaluation information which indicates an evaluation with respect to a query result in response to a query indicated by the first character string or by the second character string, indicating a good evaluation or a bad evaluation by the user ([0035], “Explicit preference information conveys a user's explicit evaluation of the results of a search query, e.g., in the form of an explicit ranking score entered by the user or the like.”); and
an update process for updating the term database using one or more terms included in the first character string or the second character string on the basis of the evaluation information ([0094], “… the environment 100 shown in FIG. 1 can continuously or periodically collect new user behavior information (e.g., from a web log) and continuously or periodically update the model 112 to account for this new behavior information.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Tang and Collins before them, to have modified the apparatus of Tang to include the evaluation acquisition process and update process of Collins. Such a modification would have been obvious because Tang suggests user feedback at [0283] and database updating at [0153].
As to Claim 2, Tang, as modified by Collins, discloses: the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the query result indicates a search result obtained by using the first character string or the second character string to perform a search with respect to a plurality of text units relating to a specific field (Tang, [0283], referring to a relevance determination); and
the term database includes some or all from among (i) terms that are included in the plurality of text units, (ii) a set of synonyms which relate to the specific field, and (iii) a term that is included in the first character string or in the second character string (Tang, [0151] – [0153], referring to the use of synonyms and stemming of the original words to populate the database and dictionary).
As to Claim 3, Tang, as modified by Collins, discloses: the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the term database includes a plurality of terms and a priority of each of said terms (Tang, [0480], referring to the use of an Shannon Information score as a method of determining “itom” (word, token, or phrase) priority);
in the generation means process, the at least one processor replaces at least part of the first character string with a term that has been selected on the basis of the priority from among the plurality of terms in the term database (Tang, [0478] – [0486], referring to determining relevance of identified itoms on the basis of their priority); and
in the update means process, the at least one processor updates the priority of each of the terms in the term database on the basis of the evaluation information (Tang, [0485]: “For each candidate returned, do a pair-wise comparison with the query, generate a SI-score.”).
As to Claim 4, Tang, as modified by Collins, discloses: the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein: in the update process, the at least one processor gives, to the each of the terms in the term database, a weight coefficient that is larger to smaller for the following cases in the following order: an evaluation indicated by the evaluation information being good; no evaluation information being obtained; and an evaluation indicated by the evaluation information being bad, and updates the priority of each of the terms in the term database on the basis of the weight coefficient (Tang, [0167] – [0168], referring to the use of an information amount score and a weight applied to each itom and field in the query; and [0480], referring to the determination of an SI-score for each itom).
As to Claim 5, Tang, as modified by Collins, discloses: the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the generation process, the at least one processor generates the second character string in a case where an amount of information included in the query result in response to the query indicated by the first character string is less than or equal to a threshold value (Tang, [0040] – [0041], referring to the calculation of the Shannon Information score of the itom using a minimum threshold).
As to Claim 6, Tang, as modified by Collins, discloses: the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the generation process, the at least one processor generates the second character string in a case where evaluation information with respect to the query result in response to the query indicated by the first character string satisfies a predetermined condition (Tang, [0151], referring to exact matching, synonym use, similarity score, and homology as methods of determining how an entered string is replaced. The implicit condition is that the entered word has synonyms or a root that can be stemmed.).
As to Claim 7, Tang, as modified by Collins, discloses: the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the first character string is input by the user with use of an input language involving input conversion (Tang, [0032], referring to natural language input including several languages);
the at least one processor further performs an identification process for identifying, with respect to the first character string, a third character string that is a character string prior to input conversion (Tang, [0130], referring to a token being an English word or a Chinese character; and Tang, [0339]: “The original string of itomic and non-itomic substances can now be converted into a string of positive (for itoms) and non-positive numbers (non-itomic substances).”); and
in the generation process, the at least one processor extracts, from the term database, a term for which input conversion from at least part of the third character string is possible, and replaces the at least part of the first character string with the term that has been extracted (Tang, [0268], referring to the replacement of words and phrases with integer codes).
As to Claim 8, Tang, as modified by Collins, discloses: the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the generation process, the at least one processor generates a plurality of candidates which can become the second character string and selects one of the plurality of candidates as the second character string on the basis of an operation by the user (Tang, [0247], referring to the generation of candidates for phrase replacement).
As to Claim 9, Tang discloses: an information processing system comprising
at least one processor ([1117], “Each computer in a "system" typically includes a processor subsystem which communicates with a memory subsystem and peripheral devices including a file storage subsystem.”), the at least one processor performing:
an input acquisition process for acquiring a first character string indicating a query from a user (Fig. 12, described at [0069], showing user input as text for a query); and
a generation process for referring to a term database and generating a second character string which is obtained by replacing at least part of the first character string with a term from the term database ([0030]: “… the database further comprises a list of synonymous words and phrases;” and [0152], referring to entered text being parsed and replaced by stemming and stem merging to generate a new query string).
Tang does not appear to explicitly disclose: an evaluation acquisition process for acquiring evaluation information which indicates an evaluation with respect to a query result in response to a query indicated by the first character string or by the second character string, indicating a good evaluation or a bad evaluation by the user; or an update process for updating the term database using one or more terms included in the first character string or the second character string on the basis of the evaluation information.
Collins discloses: an evaluation acquisition process for acquiring evaluation information which indicates an evaluation with respect to a query result in response to a query indicated by the first character string or by the second character string, indicating a good evaluation or a bad evaluation by the user ([0035], “Explicit preference information conveys a user's explicit evaluation of the results of a search query, e.g., in the form of an explicit ranking score entered by the user or the like.”); and
an update process for updating the term database using one or more terms included in the first character string or the second character string on the basis of the evaluation information ([0094], “… the environment 100 shown in FIG. 1 can continuously or periodically collect new user behavior information (e.g., from a web log) and continuously or periodically update the model 112 to account for this new behavior information.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Tang and Collins before them, to have modified the apparatus of Tang to include the evaluation acquisition process and update process of Collins. Such a modification would have been obvious because Tang suggests user feedback at [0283] and database updating at [0153].
As to Claim 10, Tang discloses: an information processing method comprising:
at least one processor acquiring a first character string indicating a query from a user ([1117], “Each computer in a "system" typically includes a processor subsystem which communicates with a memory subsystem and peripheral devices including a file storage subsystem;” and Fig. 12, described at [0069], showing user input as text for a query); and
the at least one processor referring to a term database and generating a second character string which is obtained by replacing at least part of the first character string with a term from the term database ([0030]: “… the database further comprises a list of synonymous words and phrases;” and [0152], referring to entered text being parsed and replaced by stemming and stem merging to generate a new query string).
Tang does not appear to explicitly disclose: the at least one processor acquiring evaluation information which indicates an evaluation with respect to a query result in response to a query indicated by the first character string or by the second character string, indicating a good evaluation or a bad evaluation by the user; or the at least one processor updating the term database using one or more terms included in the first character string or the second character string on the basis of the evaluation information.
Collins discloses: the at least one processor acquiring evaluation information which indicates an evaluation with respect to a query result in response to a query indicated by the first character string or by the second character string, indicating a good evaluation or a bad evaluation by the user ([0035], “Explicit preference information conveys a user's explicit evaluation of the results of a search query, e.g., in the form of an explicit ranking score entered by the user or the like.”); and
the at least one processor updating the term database using one or more terms included in the first character string or the second character string on the basis of the evaluation information ([0094], “… the environment 100 shown in FIG. 1 can continuously or periodically collect new user behavior information (e.g., from a web log) and continuously or periodically update the model 112 to account for this new behavior information.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Tang and Collins before them, to have modified the apparatus of Tang to include the evaluation acquisition process and update process of Collins. Such a modification would have been obvious because Tang suggests user feedback at [0283] and database updating at [0153].
As to Claim 11, Tang, as modified by Collins, discloses: a non-transitory storage medium storing therein a program for causing a computer to function as the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,the program causing the computer to perform: the input acquisition process; the generation process; the evaluation acquisition process; and the update process (Tang, [1117], “Each computer in a "system" typically includes a processor subsystem which communicates with a memory subsystem and peripheral devices including a file storage subsystem”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a new combination of references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIRAV K KHAKHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1004. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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 can be reached at (571) 272-4078. 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.
/NIRAV K KHAKHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights