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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-20 have been examined.
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 claims recite a judicial exception which is not integrated into a practical application and the claims lack an inventive concept.
Step 1 is the first inquiry into eligibility analysis and asks whether the claims are directed to a statutory category. In this instance, the answer must be in the affirmative because they recite a system, method, and medium.
Step 2A prong 1 is the next step in the eligibility analyses and asks whether the claimed invention recites a judicial exception. In this instance, the claims recite the following limitations which comprise the abstract idea:
obtain one or more query messages provided by a first user and having a natural language format;
process the one or more query messages using a natural language processing model to generate a user request for modifying a target information list with basic item information associated with one or more items, the user request including the basic item information;
in response to the user request, generate one or more candidate information items representing a subset of a plurality of information lists available to the first user;
while presenting the one or more candidate information items to the first user, receive a user input selecting a target information item representing the target information list;
update the target information list based on the basic item information that is generated by processing the one or more query messages;
store the target information list updated based on the basic item information in the memory.
This is an abstract idea because it is a certain method of organizing human activity because if involves commercial interactions such as advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations.
Step 2A prong 2 is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
at least one processor operatively coupled to the memory and configured to read the instructions;
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations of the processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, claim 2 which recites executing a user application and generating instructions to display information does not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. As another example, in regards to claims 3-11, these claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and even if they were not directed to the abstract idea, does not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
at least one processor operatively coupled to the memory and configured to read the instructions;
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(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) 1-13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clark (US 2017/0242845).
Referring to Claim 1, Clark teaches a system, comprising:
memory having instructions stored thereon;
at least one processor operatively coupled to the memory and configured to read the instructions to (see Clark ¶¶0018,24, a processor, interface, memory, persistent storage, for executing the program):
obtain one or more query messages provided by a first user and having a natural language format (see Clark ¶0034, receiving natural language statements spoken by a user via a list management application captured via a microphone, camera, lip reading software, vocal cord vibration, etc.);
process the one or more query messages using a natural language processing model to generate a user request for modifying a target information list with basic item information associated with one or more items, the user request including the basic item information (see Clark ¶¶0037-38, using NLP on the user’s natural language recording to generate text, and then processing it with sentence splitting, tokenization, part of speech tagging, chunking, etc., in order to determine a list item, which may be an item for inclusion in a user-associated list);
in response to the user request, generate one or more candidate information items representing a subset of a plurality of information lists available to the first user (see Clark ¶¶0053,42, using the list items to search the list database for potential existing lists to add the new list items to);
while presenting the one or more candidate information items to the first user, receive a user input selecting a target information item representing the target information list (see Clark ¶0053, the list of scored lists are then presented to the user for approval; if the user approves a list to add the list items to, that list is then committed back to the list database; ¶0048, feedback, mod of the program may provide the user with an opportunity to accept or reject a determined list action prior to performing the list action);
update the target information list based on the basic item information that is generated by processing the one or more query messages (see Clark ¶0046, the list modification performs a list action utilizing the determined list and the identified list item; example list actions include adding the item to the list at a particular location);
store the target information list updated based on the basic item information in the memory (see Clark ¶¶0053,24, the list is then committed back to the list database for future operations).
Referring to Claim 2, Clark teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising instructions to: execute a user application including a plurality of user accounts (see Clark ¶¶0054,53, multiple users can add items to lists and the lists are stored on a per-user basis); generate instructions to display the one or more candidate information items on a user interface of the user application executed on an electronic device associated with a first user account associated with the first user (see Clark ¶0053, the scored lists are then presented to the user).
Referring to Claim 3, Clark teaches the system of claim 2, further comprising instructions to generate instructions to display the target information list on the user interface of the user application executed on the electronic device (see Clark ¶¶0048,29).
Referring to Claim 4, Clark teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more query messages include a first semantic term and the one or more candidate information items includes a first information item representing a predefined information list of the first user (see Clark ¶¶0053,55-56, one or more semantic terms and one or more existing lists, which constitute predefined/existing lists, to add the new list items to).
Referring to Claim 5, Clark teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the predefined information list has an item information condition requiring that the basic item information be added to the predefined information list in accordance with a determination that the basic item information matches information of individual items in an item database (see Clark ¶0046, items are added based on matching against existing stored items “if the list item is determined to be similar (but not identical) to an existing list item, but includes additional information than that included in the existing list item, mod 375 determines to modify the existing list item to include the additional information”; also see ¶0040, the comparison mechanism may be a comparison of words in the text to the words from lists in existing lists).
Referring to Claim 6, Clark teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising instructions to execute a user application including a plurality of user accounts (see Clark ¶¶0054,53), wherein: for each user account associated with a respective user, the plurality of information lists includes a predefined information list and one or more custom information lists (see Clark ¶¶0042,44, a user list is predefined in that it exists and also custom in that the items were added by users when creating the lists); the predefined information list is named with a first semantic term for all of the plurality of user accounts and configured to include only specific item information of one or more items in an item database (see Clark ¶¶0042,47, in some embodiments the identify list mod may identify list items from lists of other users related to the user for further insight into whether the text includes new list items, and two users can both indicate they want to “purchase a hat” and add that to each of their lists); the one or more custom information lists are customized for each user account and configured to include both generic item information that correspond to an item type of items in the item database and the specific item information (see Clark ¶0042, the identification of list items in the text are based on factors specific to the user being recorded).
Referring to Claim 7, Clark teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the one or more query messages include a second semantic term, and the one or more candidate information items include a first information item identifying the predefined information list and a second information item identifying at least one of the one or more custom information lists (see Clark ¶¶0052-55).
Referring to Claim 8, Clark teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the natural language processing model includes a classifier configured to in response to the one or more query messages including the second semantic term, generate the user request for both the predefined information list and the one or more custom information lists (see Clark ¶¶0038,43, using NLP along with scoring), wherein generating one or more candidate information items further comprises selecting the at least one of the one or more custom information lists based on the one or more query messages (see Clark ¶0043).
Referring to Claim 9, Clark teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the instructions to update the target information list further comprises instructions to: in accordance with a determination that the target information list corresponds to the at least one of the one or more custom information lists, add the basic item information identified with the user request to the target information list, independently of whether the basic item information matches information of individual items of specific items in an item database (see Clark ¶0046).
Referring to Claim 10, Clark teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more query messages include identification information of a first custom information list, and the user request at identifies the first custom information list as the target information list, and wherein the one or more candidate information items include at least the target information item representing the target information list (see Clark ¶¶0043,40, the present list item includes the same subject as one or more items in an existing list).
Referring to Claim 11, Clark teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the natural language processing model includes a classifier configured to, in response to the one or more query messages, extract the user request identifying the first custom information list as the target information list, and wherein generating one or more candidate information items further comprises including the target information item representing the target information list in the one or more candidate information items (see Clark ¶¶0038,40,43,53, using NLP functions for identifying list items including parsing functions to extract noun phrases, comparing words in the messages against words lists, scoring then identifies the target list from the comparison, and these lists may be user-approved lists amongst the candidates presented).
Referring to Claim 12, this claim is similar to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same reasons and rationale.
Referring to Claim 13, Clark teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the instructions to update the target information list based on the basic item information further comprise instructions to: associate the basic item information generated from the one or more query messages with a target item for which specific item information is stored in an item database; update the basic item information generated from the one or more query messages based on the specific item information of the target item, wherein the updated item information is added into the target information list (see Clark ¶¶0046,40, associating newly-uttered basic information with an existing list and updating it if the list item is determined to be similar to an existing list, but includes additional information than that included in the existing list item, and mod 375 determines to modify the existing list item to include the additional information).
Referring to Claim 16, Clark teaches the method of any of claim 13, wherein when the target information list corresponds to a predefined information list, the basic item information that is generated from the one or more query messages is associated with the target item (see Clark ¶¶0046,40, when an existing user list is selected as the target, the new item info is compared against existing list items and associated with similar/identical existing items, and if the list item is determined to be similar (or perhaps identical) to an existing list item then mod 375 determines to modify the existing list item; also, mod 365 may compare words in the text to words from lists in the existing lists store 325).
Referring to Claim 17, this claim is similar to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same reasons and rationale.
Referring to Claim 18, Clark teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the one or more query messages includes at least one of a plurality of predefined key words, and each predefined key word corresponds to a respective set of one or more candidate information items (see Clark ¶¶0039,43, the program includes known list-indicating words in known list words data store 310, and the program scores candidates based on factors including the present list item is similar to or identical to an item in an existing list and whether an existing list was created or modified recently; different keywords in the user message produce different candidate-list scoring outcomes).
Referring to Claim 19, Clark teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 18, wherein updating the target information list based on the basic item information further comprises: based on the basic item information generated from the one or more query messages, presenting one of more candidate information items associated with candidate items for which specific item information is stored in an item database; receiving a user selection of a target item; modifying the basic item information generated from the one or more query messages based on item information of the target item (see Clark ¶¶0040,46,48).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US 2017/0242845) in view of Lloyd (US 8,521,526).
Referring to Claim 14, Clark teaches the method of claim 13, but does not teach wherein updating the target information list based on the basic item information further comprises identifying the target item based on historic transaction data of the first user. However, Lloyd teaches updating target information based on basic information by identifying a target item based on historic transaction data of the first user (see Lloyd Col. 24 lines 3-12 and Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Clark would continue to teach updating the target information list based on the basic information except that now it would further be based upon historic transaction data of the first user as taught by Lloyd. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Referring to Claim 15, Clark teaches the method of claim 13, but does not teach wherein updating the target information list based on the basic item information further comprises: in accordance with a determination that historic transaction data of the first user does not match the basic item information, generating a search request for an item search engine based on the one or more query messages or the basic item information generated from the one or more query messages to identify the target item for which the specific item information is stored in the item database. However, Lloyd teaches updating information based on a determination that historic transaction data of the first user does not match the basic item information and generating a search request for an item search engine based on one or more query messages or basic item information generated from the one or more query messages to identify the target item for which the specific item information is stored in the item database (see Lloyd Fig. 5 and Col. 12 line 66 to Col. 13 line 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Clark would continue to teach updating the target information list based on the basic information except that now it would further be based upon this search request as taught by Lloyd. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US 2017/0242845) in view of Yim (US 2023/0274737).
Referring to Claim 20, Clark teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, further comprising instructions to: execute a user application including enabling display of a user interface associated with the user application (see Clark ¶0029). Clark does not teach enable display of a voice assistant affordance item on the user interface, independently of content concurrently displayed on the user interface and in response to detection of a user action on the voice assistance affordance item, obtaining an audio signal collected via a microphone, wherein a subset of the audio signal is converted to the one or more query messages. However, Yim teaches this (see Yim ¶¶0097,64, a user may invoke the automation system by pressing an icon displayed on the graphical user interface; ¶0010,37, when invoked, the assistant begins capturing audio data that follows the gesture or action and converts the input to text). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Clark would continue to teach receiving the voice input in a user application except that now it would display a voice assistant affordance independently of the content on the user interface and detect interaction with the affordance item to thereby obtain the user’s audio signal according to the teachings of Yim. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Remarks
Additional prior art related to the application but not relied upon includes:
Reference U (see PTO-892) teaches Samsung's Bixby assistant for android phones which is an AI voice assistant activated by pressing a button.
Oczkowski (US 10,366,442) teaches a shopping cart system with product identification and matching.
RAJAPPAN (US 2022/0230228) teaches shopping online and list management where a user can add items to multiple different lists.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5278. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm M-T, 8-12pm W.
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, Jeff Smith can be reached at (571)272-6763. 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.
/MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights