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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/19/2024 and 03/11/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on: 08/02/2024 are accepted.
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because:
With regards to claim 17, it recites a “computer-readable storage medium”, for which the specification explains this ‘storage medium’ can encompass transitory media (paragraph 0108). Thus this claim can encompass transitory/signals per se, which is not to a statutory category see mpep 2106 II below for an explanation/example:
“carrier waves are not” [statutory] “because they are signals similar to the transitory, propagating signals held to be non-statutory in Nuijten. 851 F.3d at 1294, 112 USPQ2d at 1133 (citing In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, because the BRI of the claims covered both subject matter that falls within a statutory category (the random-access memory), as well as subject matter that does not (the carrier waves), the claims as a whole were not to a statutory category and thus failed the first criterion for eligibility” .
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 Analysis:
With regards to claim 1, it is directed to a method, which is a statutory category.
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1 recites the following limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind):
“An information feedback method, comprising: in response to enabling an information feedback function in a scene of reading a target book, receiving user voice data, and determining an operation intention towards the target book based on a semantic analysis result of the user voice data, wherein the operation intention comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of a questioning intention and a control intention; and determining target information for feedback based on book information of the target book and determined operation intention.”
As a note, steps that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind and include observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion (See MPEP 210604(a)(2), subsection III).
With respect to the particular limitations that were bolded above, these steps can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement and/or opinion. For example the particular limitations encompass: 1) evaluating that an information feedback function is enabled and making a judgment to perform a subsequent determination, 2) judging operation intention based upon semantic analysis, and 3) evaluating feedback based on book information and operation intention and making judgment to determine target information.
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
With regards to the following additional elements of “receiving user voice data”, these additional elements are considered to amount to mere data gathering, recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05 and Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). The courts have found these types of limitations, as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
101 Analysis for Step 2B:
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception. More specifically, as discussed above in step 2A prong two the additional element of “receiving user voice data” is recited at a high level of generality and is considered insignificant extra solution activity. Adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (such as data gathering) have been found by the courts to be insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ than the judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claims 2-8
With regards to claims 2-8, they do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (i.e. mental step limitations reciting: ‘determining’, ‘iteratively updating’, ‘in response to enabling … determining’ , ‘organizing’, based on the access-authorized reading records , … screening out …’, and ‘selecting a target recommended book …’). The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, limitations that recite ‘displaying’ and ‘receiving’ are insignificant extra solution activity and thus, have been found by the courts to be insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Also limitation(s) reciting and using the model such as ‘making the pre-trained model conduct processing ..’ generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment /field of use (model(s)/AI). The courts have found general linkage/field of use limitations to be insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The types of additional elements /limitations referenced in the examples above for insignificant extra solution activity and general linkage/field of use, have been found by the courts to be insufficient to qualify a ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as claim 1.
101 Analysis for claim 9
With regards to claim 9, it is rejected under similar rationale as the rejection of claim 1 above. It is noted that it includes additional elements of ‘computer device, comprising a processor and a memory’, these elements are considered to encompass a generic computer (and its components/functions) that is used as a tool to perform generic computer functions/operations such that they amount to no more than mere instructions/operations to apply the exception using the generic computer. Applying an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The courts have also found ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ than the judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claims 10-16
With regards to claims 10-16, they do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (i.e. mental step limitations reciting: ‘determining’, ‘iteratively updating’, ‘in response to enabling … determining’ , ‘organizing’, based on the access-authorized reading records , … screening out …’, and ‘selecting a target recommended book …’). The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, limitations that recite ‘displaying’ and ‘receiving’ are insignificant extra solution activity and thus, have been found by the courts to be insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Also limitation(s) reciting and using the model such as ‘making the pre-trained model conduct processing ..’ generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment /field of use (model(s)/AI). The courts have found general linkage/field of use limitations to be insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The types of additional elements /limitations referenced in the examples above for insignificant extra solution activity and general linkage/field of use, have been found by the courts to be insufficient to qualify a ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 10-16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as claim 9.
101 Analysis for claim 17
With regards to claim 17, it is rejected under similar rationale as the rejection of claim 1 above. It is noted that it includes additional elements of “computer-readable storage medium, wherein a computer program is stored on the computer -readable storage medium, and when the computer program is run on a computer device, the computer device executes…”, these elements are considered to encompass a generic computer (and its components/functions) that is used as a tool to perform generic computer functions/operations such that they amount to no more than mere instructions/operations to apply the exception using the generic computer. Applying an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The courts have also found ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ than the judicial exception.
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.
The term “scene” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “scene” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example the term ‘scene’ could be interpreted as general area described by writing in the book (such as an event described in a book ) , although it is unclear how this general area/event would be bounded to be interpreted /considered as a ‘scene’. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the word ‘scene’ to be label /nonce term.
With regards to claims 2-8, they do not resolve the deficiencies of claim 1, and thus they are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, it is noted that claim 7 also recites a similar issue with a different term ‘non-reading scene’ (for which the word scene in this claim is interpreted the same as claim 1 (a label/nonce term).
With regards to claim 9, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1.
With regards to claims 10-16, they do not resolve the deficiencies of claim 9, and thus they are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, it is noted that claim 15 also recites a similar issue with a different term ‘non-reading scene’ (for which the word scene in this claim is interpreted the same as claim 9 (a label/nonce term).
With regards to claim 17, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9-11, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunaselara et al (US Application: US 20210365500, published: Nov. 25, 2021, filed: May 19, 2021) in view of Petricek et al (US Patent: 11055305, published: Jul. 6, 2021, filed: Nov. 19, 2018).
With regards to claim 1, Gunaselara et al teaches an information feedback method, comprising:
In response to enabling an information [processing] function in a scene of reading a target book, receiving user voice data, and determining an operation intention towards the target book based on a semantic analysis result of the user voice data, wherein the operation intention comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of a questioning intention and a control intention (Abstract, paragraphs 0027, 0029, 0030, 0034, 0054, 0056, 0066, 0076, 0082, 0085, 0093: target media which includes one or more target books having content (such as chapters/’scenes’) are processed and a user question/query which can be in the form of voice data is received and the data includes semantic analysis to assess the question (a question intention is recognized) and also perform an operation intention to retrieve content of media (such as a the book) that is relevant to the question/query and can also include refine control intent based on user preferences/affinity ) ; and
determining target information … based on book information of the target book and determined operation intention (paragraph 0135: the book/literature results of the query/question are determined response information presented as the claimed ‘target information’) .
However Gunaselara et al does not expressly teach … in response to enabling an information feedback function in … a target book, receiving user [query/prompt] data … ,and determining target information for feedback based on book information …
Yet Petricek et al teaches … in response to enabling an information feedback function in [… reading of content], receiving user [query/prompt] data … ,and determining target information for feedback based on … information (Fig. 7, column 3, lines 20-55, column 9, lines 40-62: a user can read from content/information and provide further interaction feedback to provide/correct intent through refinement of the content/information (the refinement is obtained through a pop up that receives selectable interaction/feedback of different types of terms/criteria). In response to refinement an updated result is provided about the content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Gunaselara et al’s ability to obtain user voice data to search/query and obtain target information, such that the search/query input/interaction can be considered also as feedback to glean intent for obtaining the target information, as taught by Petricek et al. The combination would have allowed Gunaselara et al to have made it more efficient to find content for which the user is seeking (Petricek et al, column 1, lines 15-25).
With regards to claim 2. The method according to claim 1, the combination of Gunaselara et al and Petricek et al teaches wherein in response to the operation intention towards the target book comprising the questioning intention, the determining target information for feedback based on book information of the target book and determined operation intention comprises:
determining questioning information for the book information under the questioning intention; and
determining response information under the questioning information based on the book information of the target book, as the target information for feedback, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (paragraph 0135 of Gunaselara was explained to teach that a question’s intention is gleaned to determine response information that is presented to the user), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 3. The method according to claim 2, the combination of Gunaselara et al and Petricek et al teaches wherein the determining response information under the questioning information based on the book information of the target book comprises:
determining a pre-trained model matching the target book, wherein the pre-trained model is obtained by training based on the book information of the target book (paragraphs 0050, 0052 and 0055 of Gunaselera: a pre trained model is applied/matched to media (book) content , where the model is trained to domain/topic information that is associated with the media content); and
taking the questioning information as input data of the pre-trained model, making the pre-trained model conduct processing based on the questioning information to obtain an output result, and determining the response information based on the output result (paragraphs 0050, 0052, 0055, and 0135 of Gunaselera explains the response information /results are based on query/question pair data processed with the model ).
With regards to claim 5. The method according to claim 1, the combination of Gunaselara et al and Petricek et al teaches wherein in response to the operation intention towards the target book comprising the control intention, the determining target information for feedback based on book information of the target book and determined operation intention comprises:
determining an information type to be changed and a changed target state for the target book under the control intention; and determining display information of various information types under the target state, as the target information for feedback, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (Gunaselara’s user input /interaction for obtaining target content was modified such that the user input/interaction is used for feedback and the interaction includes selecting/changing different information types/filter-criteria such that the target information is displayed with updated information corresponding to the types/filter-criteria, as previously explained in Petricek, Fig. 7, column 3, lines 20-55, column 9, lines 40-62), and is rejected under similar rationale
With regards to claim 9, the combination of Gunaselara et al and Petricek et al teaches a computer device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer-readable instructions executable by the processor, the processor is configured to execute the computer-readable instructions stored in the memory, and when the computer-readable instructions are executed by the processor, the processor executes steps of an information feedback method, the method comprises:
in response to enabling an information feedback function in a scene of reading a target book, receiving user voice data, and determining an operation intention towards the target book based on a semantic analysis result of the user voice data, wherein the operation intention comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of a questioning intention and a control intention; and determining target information for feedback based on book information of the target book and determined operation intention, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 10. The computer device according to claim 9, the combination of Gunaselara et al and Petricek et al teaches wherein in response to the operation intention towards the target book comprising the questioning intention, the determining target information for feedback based on book information of the target book and determined operation intention comprises: determining questioning information for the book information under the questioning intention; and determining response information under the questioning information based on the book information of the target book, as the target information for feedback, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 11. The computer device according to claim 10, the combination of Gunaselara et al and Petricek et al teaches wherein the determining response information under the questioning information based on the book information of the target book comprises: determining a pre-trained model matching the target book, wherein the pre-trained model is obtained by training based on the book information of the target book; and taking the questioning information as input data of the pre-trained model, making the pre-trained model conduct processing based on the questioning information to obtain an output result, and determining the response information based on the output result, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 13. The computer device according to claim 9, the combination of Gunaselara et al and Petricek et al teaches wherein in response to the operation intention towards the target book comprising the control intention, the determining target information for feedback based on book information of the target book and determined operation intention comprises: determining an information type to be changed and a changed target state for the target book under the control intention; and determining display information of various information types under the target state, as the target information for feedback, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 17, the combination of Gunaselara et al and Petricek et al teaches a computer-readable storage medium, wherein a computer program is stored on the computer-readable storage medium, and when the computer program is run on a computer device, the computer device executes steps of an information feedback method, the method comprises: in response to enabling an information feedback function in a scene of reading a target book, receiving user voice data, and determining an operation intention towards the target book based on a semantic analysis result of the user voice data, wherein the operation intention comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of a questioning intention and a control intention; and determining target information for feedback based on book information of the target book and determined operation intention, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunaselara et al (US Application: US 20210365500, published: Nov. 25, 2021, filed: May 19, 2021) in view of Petricek et al (US Patent: 11055305, published: Jul. 6, 2021, filed: Nov. 19, 2018) in view of Brannan et al (US Application: US 20240403596, published: Dec. 5, 2024, filed: Aug. 16, 2023).
With regards to claim 4. The method according to claim 3, the combination of Gunaselara et al and Petricek et al after displaying the response information as the target information, further comprising:
displaying an interactive confirmation pop-up [dialog] for the target information, wherein the interactive confirmation pop-up [dialog] is used for receiving feedback on the target information; in response to the feedback indicating correction of the target information, acquiring a correction result for the target information, and determining the correction result and corresponding questioning information … ; or, in response to the feedback … updating, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (Fig. 7, column 3, lines 20-55, column 9, lines 40-62 of Petricek et al was explained to teach that a user can read from content/information and provide further interaction feedback to provide/correct intent through refinement of the content/information (the refinement is obtained through a pop up that receives selectable interaction/feedback of different types of terms/criteria). In response to refinement an updated result is provided about the content), and is rejected under similar rationale
However although the combination of Gunaselara et al and Petricek et al teaches a popup is used for receiving feedback, the combination does not expressly teach … a pop-up window is used for receiving feedback. Additionally, the combination does not expressly teach … determining the correction result and corresponding questioning information as first tag data; and iteratively updating the pre-trained model by using the first tag data or the second tag data.
Yet Brannan et al teaches … determining the correction result and corresponding questioning information as first tag data; and iteratively updating the pre-trained model by using the first tag data or the second tag data (paragraph 0064, 0069: a model is iteratively updated using label(s) (interpreted as ‘tag’) for indicate a level of preferred answer (of a plurality of levels)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Gunaselara et al and Petricek et al’s ability to use a model to provide target content/information and provide a popup for feedback associated with the content, such that one or more tags are associated with feedback to update the model with the one or more tags, as taught by Brannan et al. The combination would have allowed an efficient implementation for fine tuning a model in the interest of producing better output/answers.
However the combination explained above does not expressly teach a pop-up window being used for feedback.
Yet Brannan et al also teaches an instance of a pop-up window being used for feedback (Fig 4, Fig. 5: a user can opt to provide feedback by selecting a popped up dialog button and this selection also pops up in a new/different window a feedback screen for the user to provide feedback answer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Gunaselara et al , Petricek et al and Brannan et al’s ability to process labeled/tagged feedback to iteratively train an answer model, such that the feedback could have been provided via entry into a pop-up window, as also taught by Brannan et al. The combination would have allowed implemented a mode of entry that is user friendly and also efficient.
With regards to claim 12. The computer device according to claim 11, Gunaselara et al , Petricek et al and Brannan et al teaches after displaying the response information as the target information, further comprising: displaying an interactive confirmation pop-up window for the target information, wherein the interactive confirmation pop-up window is used for receiving feedback on the target information; in response to the feedback indicating correction of the target information, acquiring a correction result for the target information, and determining the correction result and corresponding questioning information as first tag data; or, in response to the feedback indicating approval of the target information, determining the target information and corresponding questioning information as second tag data; and iteratively updating the pre-trained model by using the first tag data or the second tag data, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunaselara et al (US Application: US 20210365500, published: Nov. 25, 2021, filed: May 19, 2021) in view of Petricek et al (US Patent: 11055305, published: Jul. 6, 2021, filed: Nov. 19, 2018) in view of Mishra et al (US Application: US 2017/0280208, published: Sep. 28, 2017, filed: Jun. 9, 2017).
With regards to claim 6. The method according to claim 1, the combination of Gunaselara et al and Petricek et al teaches wherein in response to enabling the information feedback function in the scene of reading the target book, the method further comprises: determining an information feedback strategy, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach wherein the information feedback strategy is determined based on a current reading progress of the target book and/or an information feedback record associated with book information indicated by the current reading progress; and
determining reference content information under the information feedback strategy, to determine target information for feedback based on the reference content information, wherein the reference content information comprises the information feedback record, and/or target book information determined from the target book based on the current reading progress .
Yet Mishra et al teaches wherein the information feedback strategy is determined based on a current reading progress of the target book and/or an information feedback record associated with book information indicated by the current reading progress (paragraph 0011, Fig 3: summary request (feedback) is initiated based on current reading progress of a book); and
determining reference content information under the information feedback strategy, to determine target information for feedback based on the reference content information, wherein the reference content information comprises the information feedback record, and/or target book information determined from the target book based on the current reading progress (paragraph 0011, Fig. 3: reference content information based upon the summary request is generated to produce a summary having target book information based on content leading up to current reading progress) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Gunaselara et al and Petricek et al’s ability to process user interactions/commands as feedback, such that the interactions/commands to determine reference content information would have been based on current reading progress as taught by Mishra et al. The combination would have allowed answers/summaries that are relevant and specific to previously read/consumed content.
With regards to claim 14. The computer device according to claim 9, the combination of Gunaselara et al, Petricek et al and Mishra et al teaches wherein in response to enabling the information feedback function in the scene of reading the target book, the method further comprises: determining an information feedback strategy, wherein the information feedback strategy is determined based on a current reading progress of the target book and/or an information feedback record associated with book information indicated by the current reading progress; and determining reference content information under the information feedback strategy, to determine target information for feedback based on the reference content information, wherein the reference content information comprises the information feedback record, and/or target book information determined from the target book based on the current reading progress, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 6, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunaselara et al (US Application: US 20210365500, published: Nov. 25, 2021, filed: May 19, 2021) in view of Petricek et al (US Patent: 11055305, published: Jul. 6, 2021, filed: Nov. 19, 2018) in view of Huang (US Application: US 2025/0148027, published: May 8, 2025, filed: May 15, 2023).
With regards to claim 7. The method according to claim 1, Gunaselara et al and Petricek et al teaches further comprising:
in response to enabling the information feedback function in a scene; receiving user voice data, screening out a target book for determining target information from a plurality of books based on a semantic analysis result of the user voice data, and selecting target book information from book information of the target book; and organizing the target book information to obtain the target information for feedback, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (as explained, Gunaselara et al and Petricek et al are combined in the rejection of claim 1 to teach that voice data was received and semantically processed to obtain target book information and interaction data is further processed as feedback to refine/organize the target book information ), and is rejected under similar rationale
However the combination does not expressly teach … a non-reading scene, determining that target books in the non-reading scene comprise recommended books and/or previously read books; screening out a target book for determining target information from a plurality of books.
Yet Huang teaches … a non-reading scene, determining that target books in the non-reading scene comprise recommended books and/or previously read books; screening out a target book for determining target information from a plurality of books (paragraph 0038, 0049, 0051, 0052: reading records are obtained for a plurality of books (interpreted as access-authorized to data) that have unread portions (‘non-reading’ scene) and a set of previously read books are screened out using various criteria and a target book type matching criteria of a plurality of book types (book category). A target book can then be recommended from a plurality of books based upon the screening ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Gunaselara et al and Petricek et al’s ability to use voice data and interaction data to train and obtain target information, such that the interaction data would also initiate retrieval of target content specific to other books that have unread portions that are deemed relevant to a user’s current book, as taught by Huang. The combination would have presented relevant book(s) that might be been forgotten by the user based upon recorded browsing data (Huang, paragraphs 0003 and 0004).
With regards to claim 8. The method according to claim 7, Gunaselara et al, Petricek et al and Huang teaches wherein in response to the semantic analysis result indicating book recommendation, the screened-out target book comprises the recommended books and the previously read books, and the target book information comprises book types of the recommended books, book types of the previously read books and access-authorized reading records; and
organizing the target book information to obtain the target information for feedback comprises:
based on the access-authorized reading records corresponding to the previously read books, screening out target previously read books with corresponding reading records meeting a screening condition from the previously read books;
determining a target book type based on book types corresponding to the target previously read books; and selecting a target recommended book with the target book type from the recommended books, and
determining the target information for feedback based on book information corresponding to the target recommended book, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7 (as explained the combination of Gunaselara et al and Petricek et al’s ability to obtain target content based upon initial voice semantic analysis was modified such that interaction data is modified with Huang’s teachings (paragraphs 0038, 0049, 0051, and 0052), which would also initiate retrieval of target content specific to other books through access of reading data, and screening based on one or more criteria and book category to further produce a recommendation/suggestion of target content /book to the user.), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 15. The computer device according to claim 9, the combination of Gunaselara et al, Petricek et al and Huang teaches further comprising: in response to enabling the information feedback function in a non-reading scene, determining that target books in the non-reading scene comprise recommended books and/or previously read books; receiving user voice data, screening out a target book for determining target information from a plurality of books based on a semantic analysis result of the user voice data, and selecting target book information from book information of the target book; and organizing the target book information to obtain the target information for feedback, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 16. The computer device according to claim 15, the combination of Gunaselara et al, Petricek et al and Huang wherein in response to the semantic analysis result indicating book recommendation, the screened-out target book comprises the recommended books and the previously read books, and the target book information comprises book types of the recommended books, book types of the previously read books and access-authorized reading records; and organizing the target book information to obtain the target information for feedback comprises: based on the access-authorized reading records corresponding to the previously read books, screening out target previously read books with corresponding reading records meeting a screening condition from the previously read books; determining a target book type based on book types corresponding to the target previously read books; and selecting a target recommended book with the target book type from the recommended books, and determining the target information for feedback based on book information corresponding to the target recommended book, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 8, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Menon et al (US Application: US 20230188480): This reference teaches reinforcement learning using user feedback responses to implement self-correction.
Rao et al (US Application: US 20190266185): This reference teaches implementing a content recommendation model (that can include books) and receiving user feedback of content item(s) to adapt the recommendation model.
Dutta et al (US Patent: 10339470): This reference teaches generating machine learning training data.
Badaskar (US Application: US 20140081633): This reference teaches voice based media searching.
Gruber et al (US Application: US 20130275164): This reference teaches implementing an automated assistant system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights