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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koh et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0349628).
Regarding claim 1, with respect to Figures 1-9, Koh teaches an information processing method, comprising:
acquiring a particular person’s icon [i.e., target functional tool] to be displayed and a distribution style of the target functional tool, wherein different target functional tools are configured to answer questions in different vertical scenarios, the distribution style is any one of: comprising an icon [i.e., functional tool] identifier and a question sample, and comprising a functional tool identifier and a multi-round conversation sample (abstract; fig.6, 8, 9; paragraphs 0122, 0127, 0131, 0151, 0152, 0155, 0157, 0158) (Note; paragraph 0155 teaches “The portable terminal 100 can display an icon of the particular person in the input window such that the user can recognize that entered data will be sent to the particular person.”); and
displaying the target functional tool in a main home screen [i.e., target page] according to the distribution style of the target functional tool (figs.7, 9; paragraphs 0098-0102, 0135-0138, 0146, 0151, 0152, 0158, 0163-0167, 0170-0172).
Regarding claims 2, 14 and 19, Koh teaches wherein the question sample is generated by:
in response to a functional feature of the target functional tool and/or a familiarity degree of the target functional tool meeting a question prompt condition, acquiring a question prompt statement for the target functional tool according to a vertical scenario corresponding to the target functional tool, wherein the question prompt statement is configured to indicate a question requirement and a reference question sample in the vertical scenario (figs.7, 9; paragraphs 0009, 0006, 0166-0167, 0170-0172); and
based on a generative model, generating the question sample corresponding to the target functional tool with the question prompt statement as an input (figs.7, 9; paragraphs 0009, 0006, 0147, 0156, 0166-0167, 0170-0172).
Regarding claims 3, 15 and 20, Koh teaches wherein the question sample is generated by:
in response to a functional feature of the target functional tool and/or a familiarity degree of the target functional tool meeting a question prompt condition, acquiring a question prompt statement for the target functional tool according to a vertical scenario corresponding to the target functional tool, wherein the question prompt statement is configured to indicate a question requirement and a reference question sample in the vertical scenario (figs.7, 9; paragraphs 0009, 0006, 0166-0167, 0170-0172); and
based on a generative model, generating the question sample corresponding to the target functional tool with the question prompt statement as an input (figs.7, 9; paragraphs 0009, 0006, 0166-0167, 0170-0172).
Regarding claims 4, 6 and 16, Koh teaches randomly selecting a preset number of question samples or a preset number of multi-round conversation samples from a plurality of question samples or a plurality of multi-round conversation samples that have been generated as the question samples in a distribution style or the multi-round conversation samples in a distribution style (figs.7, 9; paragraphs 0135-0138, 0146, 0151-0155, 0158, 0163-0172).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Koh teaches in response to a selection operation for the question sample corresponding to the target functional tool, displaying a first chat page of the target functional tool, and displaying a selected question sample and a first answer result of the selected question sample in the first chat page (figs.7, 9; paragraphs 0006, 0009, 0006, 0166-0172); and
wherein the first answer result is generated based on a generative model after performing semantic analysis on the selected question sample in the vertical scenario corresponding to the target functional tool (figs.7, 9; paragraphs 0006, 0009, 0166-0167, 0170-0172).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Koh teaches in response to a selection operation for the multi-round conversation sample corresponding to the target functional tool, displaying a second chat page of the target functional tool, and displaying a selected multi-round conversation sample in the second chat page (figs.7, 9; paragraphs 0006, 0009, 0006, 0166-0172);
receiving a question statement input in the second chat page (fig.9A, 9B; paragraphs 0006, 0085, 0120, 0140, 0164, 0169);
acquiring a second answer result of the question statement, wherein the second answer result is generated based on a generative model after performing statement analysis according to the selected multi-round conversation sample and the question statement in the vertical scenario corresponding to the target functional tool (abstract; fig.6, 8, 9; paragraphs 0122, 0127, 0131, 0151, 0152, 0155, 0157, 0158); and
displaying the second answer result in the second chat page (figs.7, 9; paragraphs 0098-0102, 0135-0138, 0146, 0151, 0152, 0158, 0163-0167, 0170-0172).
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Koh teaches an electronic device, comprising: a processor, and a memory, wherein the memory stores a machine-readable instruction executable by the processor, the processor is configured to execute the machine-readable instruction stored in the memory, and when the machine-readable instruction is executed by the processor, the processor performs steps of an information processing method (paragraphs 0084, 0176, 0177).
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Koh teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, wherein the non-transitory computer program, when executed by a processor, implements steps of an information processing method (paragraphs 0084, 0176, 0177).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0349628) in view of AVRUNIN et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0033852).
Regarding claims 5, 7 and 17, Koh does not specifically teach ranking a plurality of question samples or a plurality of multi-round conversation samples that have been generated according to a first ranking factor, and according to first ranking information obtained after ranking, selecting a first number of top-ranked question samples or a first number of top-ranked multi-round conversation samples as the question samples in a distribution style or the multi-round conversation samples in a distribution style, wherein the first ranking factor comprises at least one of: popularity information, and timeliness information. AVRUNIN teaches ranking a plurality of question samples or a plurality of multi-round conversation samples that have been generated according to a first ranking factor, and according to first ranking information obtained after ranking, selecting a first number of top-ranked question samples or a first number of top-ranked multi-round conversation samples as the question samples in a distribution style or the multi-round conversation samples in a distribution style, wherein the first ranking factor comprises at least one of: popularity information, and timeliness information (paragraphs 0093, 0097, 0099, 0102). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Koh to incorporate the feature of ranking a plurality of question samples or a plurality of multi-round conversation samples that have been generated according to a first ranking factor, and according to first ranking information obtained after ranking, selecting a first number of top-ranked question samples or a first number of top-ranked multi-round conversation samples as the question samples in a distribution style or the multi-round conversation samples in a distribution style, wherein the first ranking factor comprises at least one of: popularity information, and timeliness information in Koh’s invention as taught by AVRUNIN. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide indication of high or low quality questions or comments conveniently.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0349628) in view of AVRUNIN et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0033852) further in view of Wang (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0349791).
Regarding claim 8, Koh teaches wherein the target functional tool is determined by: acquiring functional tools in an application (paragraphs 0122, 0127, 0131, 0151, 0152, 0155, 0157, 0158).
However, Koh does not specifically teach ranking the functional tools according to a second ranking factor to obtain second ranking information of each of the functional tools, wherein the second ranking factor comprises at least one of: popularity information, release time information, historical display and use information; and selecting a second number of top-ranked target functional tools from the functional tools according to the second ranking information. AVRUNIN teaches a second ranking factor to obtain second ranking information of each of the functional tools, wherein the second ranking factor comprises at least one of: popularity information, release time information, historical display and use information; and selecting a second number of top-ranked target functional tools from the functional tools according to the second ranking information (paragraphs 0093, 0097, 0099, 0102), whereas Wang teaches ranking the functional tools according to a second ranking factor (paragraphs 0007, 0017). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Koh to incorporate the feature of ranking the functional tools according to a second ranking factor to obtain second ranking information of each of the functional tools, wherein the second ranking factor comprises at least one of: popularity information, release time information, historical display and use information; and selecting a second number of top-ranked target functional tools from the functional tools according to the second ranking information in Koh’s invention in order to select top ranked desired tool efficiently.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S ELAHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAN TSANG can be reached on 571-272-7547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
February 4, 2026