DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-22 are pending in the present application. Claims 1, 9-15, 17, and 19-22 were amended in the response filed 28 January 2026.
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 .
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.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: pipelines, [see figure 3, figure 4, flow chart steps 434 and 440; also note paragraph 0056 one or more pipelines to use to process query, claim 3].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barker et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0125751 A1 in view of Sudarsan et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0011920 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Barker et al. teaches the following:
An automated system for responding to queries in which a response is influenced by weather, climate or environmental factors, [note: Abstract, “”Managing answers in a question-answering environment can include sorting, based on a set of answer categories for subject matter”; paragraph 0126, influence factors can be identified; paragraph 0131, “dry climates” (i.e. example of influence factor); Figure 1] the system comprising:
a memory [note: Figure 1, memory (208), (218), (228)];
at least one processor operatively coupled to the memory, [note: Figure 1, processor (206), (216), (226)] the at least one processor configured to:
receive, via an application server or a data server, a freetext query [note: paragraphs 0070-0074, QA system 312];
receive, via an application server or a data server, contextual data associated with the freetext query, the contextual data including at least one of weather, climate, and environment information;
pre-process, via a resource server, the freetext query and the contextual data to extract at least a data entity and use the data entity to generate an assembled query [note: paragraph 0073 predefined criteria];
generate, using a generator, of the resources server a pre-response based on the assembled query [note: paragraphs 0075-0077, various input methods; paragraph 0080 system generates results; paragraph 0087 not limited to natural language ]; and
transmit the pre-response to an output device via the application server [Figures 1, 3 and 7; paragraph 0088 visualization of results; paragraphs 0070-0073 computer system display].
Although Barker et al. teach the invention as cited they do not explicitly disclose or a data server, contextual data associated with weather, climate, and environmental information. However Sudarsan et al. teach this feature as follows [note: figure 1, query sources 112, weather data 130, data sources]. Sudarsan et al. allows for query building through automatic Model builder and NL processing [note: figure 1 ML builder 150 and NL processing 160]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing date to have combined the cited references since they are both directed toward optimized searching. Sudarsan et al. further depicts the architecture of such systems.
Claim 2: The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to post-process the pre-response to generate a response [note: paragraph 0073, search may be implemented based on a predefined criteria].
The limitations of claims 21 and 22 parallel claim 1; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-22 have been considered but are moot in view of the current rejection.
ARGUMENT: Claims were rejected under 35 USC 112 first and second for written description, vagueness, and omitted structural relationship. The claims have been amended to overcome rejection.
RESPONSE: The amendment overcomes rejection cited for written description and vagueness; however with respect to the language of a pipeline, the rejection is respectfully maintained.
ARGUMENT: Claims 1, 2, 21, and 22 were rejected under 35 USC 102. The prior art does not teach the amended features.
RESPONSE: A new reference, Sudarsan et al., has been combined with Barker et al.
Sudarsan et al. teach a weather data component 103 as context data, various data sources in an NL processing system 160, see figure 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note attached form PTO-892.
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 GRETA ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Hassan Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/GRETA L ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163