DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 10 September 2024 for application 18/746,532 filed 18 June 2024.
Claim(s) 4, 12, 20 is/are currently amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 4 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 3, a colon should be added after “compromises”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., 573 US 208 (2014).
Regarding claim 1, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) data generation method.
The limitation of generating first answer data based on first question data from a user, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of determining, in response to receiving negative feedback from the user for the first answer data, a first reflection result for the first answer data based on the first answer data and the negative feedback, wherein the first reflection result indicates a diagnosis reason why feedback from the user for the first answer data is negative, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generating second answer data for the first question data based on the first question data and the first reflection result, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) data generation method.
The limitation of determining first input data for a deep learning model based on the first question data ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of determining second input data for the deep learning model based on the first question data and the first reflection result, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – deep learning model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites inputting the first input data into the deep learning model to obtain the first answer data; inputting the second input data into the deep learning model to obtain the second answer data which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites ... wherein the deep learning model is used to generate answer data based on input data which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
deep learning model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) data generation method.
The limitation of determining the second input data based on the first question data, the first reflection result, and task description information, which indicates that the second input data includes the first reflection result, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) data generation method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 4 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of inputting the first answer data and the negative feedback into a reflection generation network to obtain the first reflection result output by the reflection generation network, wherein the reflection generation network is trained using a sample corpus, which includes sample answer data, sample feedback, and a sample reflection result for the sample answer data.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – reflection generation network. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites inputting the first answer data and the negative feedback into a reflection generation network to obtain the first reflection result output by the reflection generation network ... which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites ... wherein the reflection generation network is trained using a sample corpus, which includes sample answer data, sample feedback, and a sample reflection result for the sample answer data which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
reflection generation network amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) data generation method.
The limitation of determining, in response to receiving first feedback from the user for the first answer data, and in response to determining that the first feedback is negative, the first reflection result for the first answer data based on the first answer data and the first feedback, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) data generation method.
The limitation of generating, in response to determining that a similarity between second question data from the user and the first question data exceeds a preset threshold, third answer data for the second question data based on the first question data, the second answer data, and the second question data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) data generation method.
The limitation of generating the third answer data based on the first question data, the second answer data, and the second question data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – memory bank. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites storing the first question data and the second answer data into a memory bank; obtaining the second answer data from the memory bank in response to determining that the similarity between the second question data from the user and the first question data in the memory bank exceeds the preset threshold, which is simply storing and retrieving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
memory bank amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
storing and retrieving data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) data generation method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 8 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the first reflection result further comprises an optimization strategy for the first answer data.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to an electronic device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) electronic device.
The limitation of generating first answer data based on first question data from a user, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of determining, in response to receiving negative feedback from the user for the first answer data, a first reflection result for the first answer data based on the first answer data and the negative feedback, wherein the first reflection result indicates a diagnosis reason why feedback from the user for the first answer data is negative, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generating second answer data for the first question data based on the first question data and the first reflection result, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – electronic device, at least one processor, memory, instructions. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
electronic device, at least one processor, memory, instructions amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to an electronic device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) electronic device.
The limitation of determining first input data for a deep learning model based on the first question data ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of determining second input data for the deep learning model based on the first question data and the first reflection result, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – deep learning model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites inputting the first input data into the deep learning model to obtain the first answer data; inputting the second input data into the deep learning model to obtain the second answer data which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites ... wherein the deep learning model is used to generate answer data based on input data which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
deep learning model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to an electronic device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) electronic device.
The limitation of determining the second input data based on the first question data, the first reflection result, and task description information, which indicates that the second input data includes the first reflection result, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to an electronic device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) electronic device. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 9 is applicable here since claim 12 carries out the electronic device of claim 9 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of inputting the first answer data and the negative feedback into a reflection generation network to obtain the first reflection result output by the reflection generation network, wherein the reflection generation network is trained using a sample corpus, which includes sample answer data, sample feedback, and a sample reflection result for the sample answer data.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – reflection generation network. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites inputting the first answer data and the negative feedback into a reflection generation network to obtain the first reflection result output by the reflection generation network ... which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites ... wherein the reflection generation network is trained using a sample corpus, which includes sample answer data, sample feedback, and a sample reflection result for the sample answer data which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
reflection generation network amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to an electronic device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) electronic device.
The limitation of determining, in response to receiving first feedback from the user for the first answer data, and in response to determining that the first feedback is negative, the first reflection result for the first answer data based on the first answer data and the first feedback, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to an electronic device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) electronic device.
The limitation of generating, in response to determining that a similarity between second question data from the user and the first question data exceeds a preset threshold, third answer data for the second question data based on the first question data, the second answer data, and the second question data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to an electronic device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) electronic device.
The limitation of generating the third answer data based on the first question data, the second answer data, and the second question data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – memory bank. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites storing the first question data and the second answer data into a memory bank; obtaining the second answer data from the memory bank in response to determining that the similarity between the second question data from the user and the first question data in the memory bank exceeds the preset threshold, which is simply storing and retrieving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
memory bank amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
storing and retrieving data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to an electronic device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) electronic device. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 9 is applicable here since claim 16 carries out the electronic device of claim 9 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the first reflection result further comprises an optimization strategy for the first answer data.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable storage medium.
The limitation of generating first answer data based on first question data from a user, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of determining, in response to receiving negative feedback from the user for the first answer data, a first reflection result for the first answer data based on the first answer data and the negative feedback, wherein the first reflection result indicates a diagnosis reason why feedback from the user for the first answer data is negative, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generating second answer data for the first question data based on the first question data and the first reflection result, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – computer-readable storage medium, computer instructions, computer. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
computer-readable storage medium, computer instructions, computer amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable storage medium.
The limitation of determining first input data for a deep learning model based on the first question data ..., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of determining second input data for the deep learning model based on the first question data and the first reflection result, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – deep learning model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites inputting the first input data into the deep learning model to obtain the first answer data; inputting the second input data into the deep learning model to obtain the second answer data which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites ... wherein the deep learning model is used to generate answer data based on input data which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
deep learning model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable storage medium.
The limitation of determining the second input data based on the first question data, the first reflection result, and task description information, which indicates that the second input data includes the first reflection result, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable storage medium. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 17 is applicable here since claim 20 carries out the computer-readable storage medium of claim 17 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of inputting the first answer data and the negative feedback into a reflection generation network to obtain the first reflection result output by the reflection generation network, wherein the reflection generation network is trained using a sample corpus, which includes sample answer data, sample feedback, and a sample reflection result for the sample answer data.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – reflection generation network. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites inputting the first answer data and the negative feedback into a reflection generation network to obtain the first reflection result output by the reflection generation network ... which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites ... wherein the reflection generation network is trained using a sample corpus, which includes sample answer data, sample feedback, and a sample reflection result for the sample answer data which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
reflection generation network amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-13, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengupta et al. (US 2023/0063131 A1 – Dynamic Goal-Oriented Dialogue with Virtual Agents, hereinafter referred to as “Sengupta”).
Regarding claim 1 (Original), Sengupta teaches a data generation method, the method comprising:
generating first answer data based on first question data from a user (Sengupta, [0066] – teaches presenting a virtual assistant response to a user based on the user’s first utterance);
determining, in response to receiving negative feedback from the user for the first answer data (Sengupta, [0066] – teaches determining negative user sentiment from the user’s second utterance [user response to first answer]), a first reflection result for the first answer data based on the first answer data and the negative feedback (Sengupta, [0066]-[0067] – teaches determining a discrepancy based on the negative feedback and the first response of the virtual assistant), wherein the first reflection result indicates a diagnosis reason why feedback from the user for the first answer data is negative (Sengupta, [0066]-[0067] – teaches determining negative sentiment identifies a discrepancy from the first goal associated with the first response); and
generating second answer data for the first question data based on the first question data and the first reflection result (Sengupta, [0066] – teaches, based on the discrepancy, presenting a new response to the first utterance of the user).
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Sengupta teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Sengupta further teaches
wherein generating first answer data based on first question data from a user comprises:
determining first input data for a deep learning model based on the first question data (Sengupta, [0054] – teaches generating input from the user utterance for the deep Q network reinforcement learning agent; see also [0045]-[0046]; Sengupta, Fig. 2), wherein the deep learning model is used to generate answer data based on input data (Sengupta, [0054] - teaches using a deep Q network reinforcement learning agent to determine a response based on a user utterance); and
inputting the first input data into the deep learning model to obtain the first answer data (Sengupta, [0054] - teaches using a deep Q network reinforcement learning agent to determine a response based on a user utterance), and
wherein generating second answer data for the first question data based on the first question data and the first reflection result comprises:
determining second input data for the deep learning model based on the first question data and the first reflection result (Sengupta, [0054] – teaches generating input from the user utterance and any discrepancy for the deep Q network reinforcement learning agent; see also [0045]-[0046]; Sengupta, Fig. 2); and
inputting the second input data into the deep learning model to obtain the second answer data (Sengupta, [0054] - teaches using a deep Q network reinforcement learning agent to determine a response based on a user utterance).
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Sengupta teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 2 as noted above. Sengupta further teaches wherein determining second input data for the deep learning model based on the first question data and the first reflection result comprises:
determining the second input data based on the first question data, the first reflection result, and task description information, which indicates that the second input data includes the first reflection result (Sengupta, [0054] – teaches generating input comprising the dialog state and the GDM signal for the deep Q network reinforcement learning agent ; see also [0045]-[0046] – teaches GDM is a goal reasoning model that is configured to revise its goal when any discrepancy occurs).
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Sengupta teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Sengupta further teaches wherein determining a first reflection result for the first answer data based on the first answer data and the negative feedback comprises
inputting the first answer data and the negative feedback into a reflection generation network to obtain the first reflection result output by the reflection generation network (Sengupta, [0066] – teaches determining a sentiment score which is used to determine a negative sentiment and ultimately a discrepancy with respect to the goal), wherein the reflection generation network is trained using a sample corpus, which includes sample answer data, sample feedback, and a sample reflection result for the sample answer data (Sengupta, [0044] – teaches training sentiment classification with user utterances, feedback and a conversation dataset; see also Sengupta, [0037], [0047] – policy learning for the discrepancy).
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Sengupta teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Sengupta further teaches wherein determining, in response to receiving negative feedback from the user for the first answer data, a first reflection result for the first answer data based on the first answer data and the negative feedback comprises:
determining, in response to receiving first feedback from the user for the first answer data, and in response to determining that the first feedback is negative (Sengupta, [0066] – teaches that the user response provides negative sentiment), the first reflection result for the first answer data based on the first answer data and the first feedback (Sengupta, [0066]-[0067] – teaches determining negative sentiment identifies a discrepancy from the first goal associated with the first response).
Regarding claim 8 (Original), Sengupta teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Sengupta further teaches wherein the first reflection result further comprises an optimization strategy for the first answer data (Sengupta, [0046] – teaches revising the goal when a discrepancy exists).
Regarding claim 9 (Original), it is the electronic device embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. Sengupta further teaches an electronic device, comprising:
at least one processor (Sengupta, [0071] - teaches performing methods using a computer system, including processor and memory); and
a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor, wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising (Sengupta, [0071] - teaches performing methods using a computer system, including processor and memory) …
Regarding claim 10 (Original), the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Sengupta for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 11 (Original), the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Sengupta for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Sengupta for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 13 (Original), the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Sengupta for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 16 (Original), the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Sengupta for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 17 (Original), it is the computer-readable storage medium embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. Sengupta further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer instructions, wherein the computer instructions are used to cause a computer to perform operations comprising (Sengupta, [0071] - teaches performing methods using a computer system, including processor and memory) …
Regarding claim 18 (Original), the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Sengupta for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 19 (Original), the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Sengupta for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 20 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Sengupta for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Claim(s) 6-7, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengupta et al. (US 2023/0063131 A1 – Dynamic Goal-Oriented Dialogue with Virtual Agents, hereinafter referred to as “Sengupta”).
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Sengupta teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. However, Sengupta does not explicitly teach generating, in response to determining that a similarity between second question data from the user and the first question data exceeds a preset threshold, third answer data for the second question data based on the first question data, the second answer data, and the second question data.
Shevelev teaches generating, in response to determining that a similarity between second question data from the user and the first question data exceeds a preset threshold, third answer data for the second question data based on the first question data, the second answer data, and the second question data (Shevelev, [0066]-[0067] – teaches that when a previously-stored question/answer pair has a question that matches a new user generated question, the system maps the answer from the pair to the new user generated question).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sengupta with the teachings of Sengupta in order to continuously improve question/answer models in the field of conversational agents (Shevelev, [0037] – “In one embodiment, user attributes from user profiles stored in the data repository ... and the question/answer pairs, including user feedback attributes and metadata comprise a training dataset to train a machine learning model employed by the text encoder... Answers and comments given by the machine or humans can be up-voted or down-voted. This information, plus implicit feedback (clicks, number of comments, pages visited, how long people stayed on the page, etc.), are used as features in the training dataset, which helps continuously re-train and improve the question/answer models.”).
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Sengupta in view of Shevelev teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 6 as noted above. Shevelev further teaches
storing the first question data and the second answer data into a memory bank (Shevelev, [0066]-[0067] – teaches a previously-stored question/answer pair),
wherein generating, in response to determining that a similarity between second question data from the user and the first question data exceeds the preset threshold, third answer data for the second question data based on the first question data, the second answer data, and the second question data comprises:
obtaining the second answer data from the memory bank in response to determining that the similarity between the second question data from the user and the first question data in the memory bank exceeds the preset threshold (Shevelev, [0066]-[0067] – teaches that when a previously-stored question/answer pair has a question that matches a new user generated question, the system maps the answer from the pair to the new user generated question); and
generating the third answer data based on the first question data, the second answer data, and the second question data (Shevelev, [0067] – teaches that when a previously-stored question/answer pair has a question that matches a new user generated question, the system maps the answer from the pair to the new user generated question).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sengupta and Shevelev in order to continuously improve question/answer models (Shevelev, [0037]).
Regarding claim 14 (Original), the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Sengupta in view of Shevelev for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 15 (Original), the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Sengupta in view of Shevelev for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL WERNER whose telephone number is (469) 295-9143. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax 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.
/MARSHALL L WERNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights