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) 1-3, 5-6, 8-20 have been examined.
The remaining claims have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 6 each recite “a plurality of user accounts” yet claim 1 has already recited “a plurality of user accounts”. It is unclear whether these are the same or different user accounts. Correction is required.
Claims 10 and 11 recite the limitation "the one or more candidate information items". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim due to the recent amendment. 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-20 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:
an information database storing a plurality of information lists for a plurality of user accounts wherein the plurality of information lists includes a predefined information list for each of the user accounts, and the predefined information list has a first list type identified by a first semantic term;
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, including, in response to the one or more query messages including a second semantic term distinct from the first semantic term, generating the user request identifying both the predefined information list of the first type and one or more custom information lists of a second list type, the second list type being identified by the second semantic term;
in response to the user request, a plurality of candidate information items representing the predefined information list and the one or more custom information lists;
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 information database stored 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, regarding claims 3, 5-6, 8-20, 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 § 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) 1-3, 5-6, 8-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US 2017/0242845) in view of Franco (see Reference V on PTO-892) in further view of Oczkowski (US 10,366,442).
Referring to Claim 1, Clark teaches a system, comprising:
memory having instructions stored thereon;
memory having instructions and an information database stored thereon, the information database storing a plurality of information lists for a plurality of user accounts (see Clark ¶¶0024-25, program 300, which is stored in persistent storage 210, includes machine readable instructions and data of the type stored in database; ¶¶0043,53, existing list store 325 and list database 455 store existing lists that may or may not be associated with the user; ¶¶0042,54, lists associated with the user and lists of other users):
at least one processor operatively coupled to the memory and configured to read the instructions (see Clark ¶¶0018,24);
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 ¶¶0053,43, and fig. 4, the program searches list database for potential existing lists to add the new list items to, retrieves candidate lists, and scores those lists, resulting in the list of score lists);
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 and fig. 4, 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 information database stored in the memory (see Clark ¶¶0053,24, the list is then committed back to the list database for future operations).
Clark does not teach wherein the plurality of information lists includes a predefined information list for each of the plurality of user accounts and the predefined information list has a first list type identified by a first semantic term; the user request being generating including, in response to the one or more query messages including a second semantic term distinct from the first semantic term, generating the user request identifying both the predefined information list of the first list type and one or more custom information lists of a second list type, the second list type being identified by the second semantic term, and the plurality of candidate information items representing the predefined information list and the one or more information lists. However, Franco teaches a plurality of information lists that includes a first information list having a first list type identified by a first semantic term (see Franco p.29, “Back in the app, I made a ‘Grocery Store’ list and a ‘Hardware Store’ list,” i.e., a first information list (the ‘Hardware Store’ list) of a first type identified by a first semantic term (“hardware”); p.8, the user adds and names lists, which are stored; p.24, the lists are identified by their names). Franco further teaches, in response to one or more query messages including a second semantic term distinct from the first semantic term, generating the user request identifying both the first information list of the first list type and one or more custom information lists of a second list type, the second list type being identified by the second semantic term (see Franco p.3, Siri does “all the word to try to understand all the ways a user might phrase a request” and sends the app a structured request with parameters; p.32, for adding an item, the request includes a target task list whose title is resolved; p.24, getPossibleLists loops through all of the lists and returns every list whose name contains the word the user said, e.g., “This lets ‘Grocery’ match ‘Grocery Store’”; p.29, when the user asks for the “store” list, both the “Hardware Store” list and the “Grocery Store” list are identified; pp. 32-33, adding an item uses the same logic, “Saying ‘Store’ needs to be disambiguated”; the term “store” is distinct from the term “hardware” and the “Grocery Store” list, which was created by the user, is a custom information list of a second type identified by the term “store”). Franco further teaches generating a plurality of candidate information items representing the first information list and the one or more custom information lists (see Franco p.22, “if you say ‘Store,’ then Siri would present a menu of matching lists”; p.25, “If we got multiple matches, then we use completion(.disambugation(with:possibleLists)) to tell Siri to show a list and le the user pick one”; p.31, “Siri handles the request by asking for clarification”). 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 processing the user’s natural language statement using NLP, identifying candidate lists, presenting the candidate lists to the user for approval, and adding the list item to the approved list, except that now the lists would be named and the term the user used for the list would be matched against the list names as taught by Franco, such that a term shared by the names of several lists (e.g., “store”) would identify each of those lists. This is a predictable result of the combination.
The combination of Clark and Franco do not teach wherein the first information list is a “predefined” information list for each of the plurality of user accounts. However, Oczkowski teaches that an information list may be predefined for each of a plurality of user accounts (see Oczkowski col. 3 lines 5-12, every customer account has a shopping cart, which is a type of list and since every customer account has it, it is therefore predefined). 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 and Franco would continue to teach an information list, except that now the information list would be predefined as taught by Oczkowski. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Referring to Claim 2, the combination teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising instructions to: execute a user application including a plurality of user accounts (see Clark ¶¶0042-43,54, the list management application is used by multiple users including approved and administrative users and lists are associated with respective users); and generate instructions to display the plurality of 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; ¶0048, using a user interface).
Referring to Claim 3, the combination 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 5, the combination teaches the system of claim 1, 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 Oczkowski Col. 3 lines 28-46, the text corresponding to the audio input is used to search the database and find products that correspond to the text; Col. 4 lines 19-28, when the confidence score of the product that matches the input is greater than a threshold, then the product is added to user’s predefined list; Col. 4 line 45 to Col. 5 line 12, when no products match with enough confidence, then the user is prompted to add it instead).
Referring to Claim 6, the combination teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising instructions to execute a user application including a plurality of user accounts (see Clark ¶¶0042-43,54), wherein: for each user account associated with a respective user, the plurality of information lists includes the predefined information list and one or more associated custom information lists (see Clark ¶0009, a plurality of users and each user can have a plurality of lists, which Franco has taught can include a predefined list for every user); the predefined information list is named with at least the first semantic term for all of the plurality of user accounts (see Franco p.29, the “Hardware Store” list is named with the term “hardware”; Oczkowski Col. 3 liens 5-12, the predefined list is included in the profile of every customer, as combined for claim 1) and configured to include only specific item information of one or more items in an item database (see Oczkowski Col. 3 lines 28-46, Col. 4 lines 19-28, and Col. 10 lines 1-13, only the specific products identified in the product database, such as a 10lb bag of Gala apples, are added to the shopping cart – i.e., the predefined list); the one or more associated 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 ¶¶0042,55-56, the lists are specific to the user and include generic terms such as “get breakfast cereal” and “pickup orange juice”; ¶0046, a list may be modified to include additional information beyond that of the existing item).
Referring to Claim 8, the combination teaches the system of claim 1, 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 wherein the target information list includes at least one of the one or more custom information lists (see Franco pp.24-25, the term “store” is in both lists).
Referring to Claim 9, the combination teaches the system of claim 8, 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 Franco pp.35,37, the items are added to the user’s list by their spoken names, list.addItem(name: item.spokenPhrase, …), without reference to an item database).
Referring to Claim 10, the combination 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 Franco pp.22, “if you say ‘Grocery Store,’ then Siri would have an exact match”; p.31, an exact match “goes right to the results”; p.33, for adding items, “saying ‘Grocery Store’ would be an exact match”; p.35, “In ListOMat, add apples to the grocery list”; p.37, “add Rice, Onions, and Olives to the Grocery Store list”; p.25, a single inexact match is shown to the user for them to choose).
Referring to Claim 11, the combination 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 Franco p.3, the request is converted into a structured request with parameters; p.24, an exact match between the term the user said and a list name returns that list; p.25, the exact match is resolved as the target list, and a single inexact match is shown to the user for their confirmation; pp.32-33, the same thing is sone for adding items).
Referring to Claim 12, this claim is similar to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same reasons and rationale.
Referring to Claim 13, the combination 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 14, the combination teaches the method of claim 13, 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 Oczkowski Col. 4 lines 13-18, if a customer often buys 10lb bags of Gala apples and their audio input corresponds to “apples” then it can determined with high confidence that the customer actually means a “10lb bag of Gala apples”; Col. 3 lines 52-57 and Col. 10 lines 57-67, products are identified based on the purchase history of the customer).
Referring to Claim 15, the combination teaches the method of claim 13, 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 (see Oczkowski Col. 4 lines 45-59, when none of the identified products has a confidence score greater than the threshold value, a list of potential products is determined by searching a product database using known search and keyword matching techniques; also see Col. 18 lines 14-25).
Referring to Claim 16, the combination teaches the method of any of claim 13, wherein the basic item information that is generated from the one or more query messages is associated with the target item (see Oczkowski Col. 3 lines 28-46 and Col. 4 lines 13-28, the input “apples” is associated with the specific product, e.g., a 10lb bag of Gala apples).
Referring to Claim 17, this claim is similar to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same reasons and rationale.
Referring to Claim 18, the combination 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 Franco p.24, the term the user said is compared to the predefined list names and the key word “all” returns every list as a possibility; p.29, the term “store” corresponds to the set of lists whose names contain “store” while p.31, the term “Grocery Store” corresponds to that one list; also see Clark ¶0039, known list-indicating words stored in known list words data store 310).
Referring to Claim 19, the combination 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(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US 2017/0242845) in view of Reference V (see PTO-892) in further view of Oczkowski (US 10,366,442) in further view of Yim (US 2023/0274737).
Referring to Claim 20, the combination 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). The combination 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, the combination 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.
The applicant respectfully argues that the claims overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the new limitations link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The examiner respectfully disagrees because the claims lack an improvement to said technological environment and for these reasons, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art are moot due to the introduction of new prior art in response to the applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571)272-6764 and Abdi Kambiz can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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