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 .
● This action is responsive to the following communication: US Patent Application filed on 8/1/2024.
● Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
● The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/1/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Venkataraman et al (US 20170364520).
Regarding claim 1, Venkataraman discloses a method, comprising:
facilitating a mapping (mapping query to vector, figs. 3, 9, 10) of a natural language query (input query, fig. 9) to a vector using a query-to-vector engine;
matching the vector to an intent (matching intents associated with queries using vector representations, figs. 9-10, pars. 6, 20, 34) using a vector-to-intent engine trained by locking word embeddings ; and
providing a response (providing response to an input query, figs. 9, 10) to the natural language query based on the intent.
Regarding claim 3, Venkataraman further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the query-to-vector engine is configured to leverage the word embeddings (embeddings, pars. 52, 58, 79, 124, 138) in each of a plurality of natural languages to map natural language queries in the plurality of natural languages to vectors (vectors, pars. 16-18) corresponding to meanings of the natural language queries.
Regarding claim 4, Venkataraman further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the intent (intent, par. 34) represents a grouping of a set of queries (queries, par. 34), including the natural language query, for further processing.
Regarding claim 5, Venkataraman further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the vector is a numeric vector in a multi-dimensional space (multi-dimensional space, par. 34).
Regarding claim 6, Venkataraman further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein facilitating the mapping of the natural language query to the vector does not include translating (mapping query to vector does not require translation, figs. 3, 9, 10) the natural language query into a natural language different from a natural language of the natural language query.
Regarding claims 8, 10-13, 15, 17-20 recite limitations that are similar and in the same scope of invention as to those in claims 1, 3-5 above; therefore, claims 8, 10-12, 15, 17-19 are rejected for the same rejection rationale/basis as described in claims 1, 3-5.
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) 2, 7, 9, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman as described in claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-20 above in view of Trehan (US 11741317).
Regarding claims 2, 7, 9, 14, 16, Venkataraman fails to teach and/or suggest query in a first natural language matches to a same intent as a translation of the first query into a second natural language using machine learning technique.
Trehan, in the same field of endeavor for search query, teaches a well-known example of query in a first natural language matches to a same intent as a translation (figs. 4-5) of the first query into a second natural language using machine learning technique (machine learning technique, col. 5, line 60 to col.6, line 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by modifying search query of Venkataraman to include query in a first natural language matches to a same intent as a translation of the first query into a second natural language using machine learning technique as taught by Trehan to improve output responses using machine learning and translation from a source language to a target language with respect to input query’s intents.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Venkataraman with Trehan to obtain the invention as specified in claims 2, 7, 9, 14, 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. ---US 20180232376 to Zhu et al, teaches a conversational virtual assistant for delivery relevant query solutions using knowledge databases that can be searched for finding documents that fulfills the user’s intent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIERRY L PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7439. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 11-6.
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, Hai Phan can be reached at (571)272-6338. 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.
/THIERRY L PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights