DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were submitted on 08/05/2024. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the Double Patenting Rejection set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claims 2, 12, and 13, the closest prior art Kondadadi et al. (US 20170199963 A1) teaches:
“determining a plurality of statements via a processor based on a first data model portion including relationships between two or more entities of a structured database, the relationships being based on predetermined narrative analytics using the two or more entities, the plurality of statements mapping to different subsets of the predetermined narrative analytics” (par. 0081; ‘Such alternative hypotheses may be collected at any or all of various processing levels of fact extraction, including entity detection, entity relation, and/or normalization/coding stages.’);
“generating a plurality of selectable goal statements based on the plurality of statements, at least one selectable goal statement including a data requirement from a second data model portion including one or more data requirements for one or more entities of the structured database” (par. 0110; ‘In some embodiments, GUI 200 may be configured to allow the user to select one or more of the medical facts in fact panel 230, and in response to the selection, may provide an indication of the portion(s) of the text narrative from which those fact(s) were extracted.’);
“receiving user input indicating a selection of one or more of the plurality of selectable goal statements, the one or more selectable goal statements corresponding with a subset of the predetermined narrative analytics” (par. 0110; ‘In some embodiments, GUI 200 may be configured to allow the user to select one or more of the medical facts in fact panel 230, and in response to the selection, may provide an indication of the portion(s) of the text narrative from which those fact(s) were extracted.’);
“retrieving from the structured database data associated with one or more entity objects corresponding with the one or more selectable goal statements” (par. 0110; ‘In this example, fact 312 (“unspecified chest pain”) has been selected by the user in fact panel 230, and in response visual indicator 420 of the portion of the text narrative from which fact 312 was extracted (“chest pain”) is provided. Such a user selection may be made in any suitable way, as embodiments are not limited in this respect.’).
However, the Examiner deems the prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, inter alia, “executing the subset of the predetermined narrative analytics on the data via the processor to determine a plurality of content items for inclusion in a natural language narrative” and “providing the natural language narrative including natural language output based on the plurality of content items in accordance with the one or more selectable goal statements” in combination with the other claimed features.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,086,562. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are directed to generating natural language narratives. See chart for comparison.
Instant Application Claim
US Patent Claim
13. A system comprising a processor and memory, the system being configured to perform a method comprising:determining a plurality of statements via a processor based on a first data model portion including relationships between two or more entities of a structured database, the relationships being based on predetermined narrative analytics using the two or more entities, the plurality of statements mapping to different subsets of the predetermined narrative analytics;generating a plurality of selectable goal statements based on the plurality of statements, at least one selectable goal statement including a data requirement from a second data model portion including one or more data requirements for one or more entities of the structured database;receiving user input indicating a selection of one or more of the plurality of selectable goal statements, the one or more selectable goal statements corresponding with a subset of the predetermined narrative analytics;retrieving from the structured database data associated with one or more entity objects corresponding with the one or more selectable goal statements;executing the subset of the predetermined narrative analytics on the data via the processor to determine a plurality of content items for inclusion in a natural language narrative; andproviding the natural language narrative including natural language output based on the plurality of content items in accordance with the one or more selectable goal statements.
1. An artificial intelligence system for generating a natural language narrative from structured data, the system comprising: a memory configured to store a plurality of narrative analytics and an ontology; a communication interface configured toreceive a natural language statement identifying a communication goal to be achieved by the natural language narrative; a processor configured to:process the natural language statement by mapping the natural language statement to one or more base communication goal statements including one or more ontological objects included in the ontology;map the one or more base communication goal statements to (i) a subset of the narrative analytics and (ii) a plurality of data requirements for the narrative analytics within the subset of the narrative analytics;
map the data requirements to data within the structured data;
execute the subset of narrative analytics on the mapped data within the structured data to determine a plurality of content items for inclusion in the natural language narrative; andperform natural language generation (NLG) on the determined content items to generate the natural language narrative expressing the determined content items in a manner that satisfies the communication goal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK VILLENA whose telephone number is (571)270-3191. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6pm EST Monday through Friday.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571) 272-7602. 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.
MARK . VILLENA
Examiner
Art Unit 2658
/MARK VILLENA/Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights