Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/410,641, filed May 13, 2019, now U.S. Patent No. 12,072,877, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application 14/233,640, filed September 18, 2014, now U.S. Patent No. 10,387,410, which is a U.S. National Stage Application of PCT/CA2012/000685, filed July 19, 2012, which claims priority to and the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/596,407, filed February 8, 2012, and Canadian Patent Application No. 2,747,153, filed July 19, 2011
Response to Amendment
Claims 30-31, 39, and 45-46 are amended. Claims 47-53 are added. Claims 1-29, 35-38 and 43-44 are cancelled. Claims 30-34, 39-42 and 45-53 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 30-34, 39-42 and 45-53 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 30-31, 35-39, 43-45, and 47-51 and are rejected under 101.
Claim 47 includes: A computer-implemented method of processing queries for performing one or more functions, the method comprising: (a) receiving a first query of a plurality of user queries by a communication system, wherein the first query defines at least one command, and the at least one command is classified as a type of function; (b) after receiving the first query, receiving a second query of the plurality of user queries by the communication system, wherein the second query includes at least one entity; (c) determining the type of function for the at least one command of the first query by ranking candidate types of functions for the at least one command; (d) identifying a template based on the type of function for the at least one command, wherein the template comprises the at least one command for an entity associated with performing the at least one command; and (d) performing, by the communication system, the at least one command from the first query based at least in part on the at least one entity from the second query according to the template, wherein the ranking of candidate types of functions is derived from a plurality of natural language processing techniques via a neural network responsive to an output of each of the plurality of natural language processing techniques.
Step (a) can be performed mentally since a person can receive a question from the other person and determine what the function of the question for is e.g. play music.
Step (b) can be performed mentally because a person is a able to relate a subsequent question to the first question and determine the entity
Step (c) –(d) can be performed mentally since a person can choose a template to fill in the black based on what was received in the question and execute that function e.g. play music by [entity]
Additional element of the claims are “by the communication system” and “using neural network”
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least a method, hence a process. Thus, the claim recites a statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of steps (a)-(d) that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. As discussed Step (a) can be performed mentally since a person can receive a question from the other person and determine what the function of the question for is e.g. play music. Step (b) can be performed mentally because a person is a able to relate a subsequent question to the first question and determine the entity Step (c) –(d) can be performed mentally since a person can choose a template to fill in the black based on what was received in the question and execute that function e.g. play music by [entity]. Hence, these steps can be performed by a human, using “observation, evaluation, judgment, [and] opinion,” because they involve making doing analysis on the given data which are mental tasks humans routinely do,' ” and thus can practically be performed in the human mind, In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Therefore, these limitations are considered together as a abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Claim requires performing by the communication systema and using neural network. These provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. For e.g. communication system is performing a task which human can perform and similarly human can rank and fill the slot which is performed by neural network in this case. Hence the computer elements are acting in place of a person. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. At Step 2A, Prong Two, the second additional element communication system and neural network was found to represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, this limitation remains insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claims 30-31, 35-39, 43-45 and 50-51 recites a combination of mental process as same in claim 47 and additional element which are mere generic computer component under step 2, prong 2A and well known routine and conventional under prong 2b. Hence these claims are patent ineligible.
Regarding claims 48-49, analysis applicable to claim 45, are applicable
Additionally, claims 45-46, 59 and 51-53 are drawn to " A computer storage medium " which includes both statutory and non-statutory subject matter. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim drawn to A computer storage medium as per as the specification (Para 0014) includes the signal and embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, as per the specification para 0014 (for e.g. there is provided a computer program product comprising a storage medium (e.g. a memory or other storage device) storing instructions and data for performing a method in accordance with an aspect described.) . Computer storage does not exclude the signal. And therefore because of the broadest reasonable interpretation computer readable storage medium covers a signal per se, a rejection under 35 USC 101 is appropriate as covering non-statutory subject matter. The examiner suggest applicant to amend by inserting a word ---non-transitory-- prior to "computer program product" to overcome rejections under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Examiner’s Remark
Claims 32-34, 40-42, 46 and 52-53 requires a specific algorithm to determine and optimize user query. When viewed in the ordered combination, the claim improves the technology of "recognizing user query", hence patent eligible under abstract idea analysis
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
And
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determination.
Claims 47, 48 and 49 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Di (US 8204751) and further in view of Roberge ( US 20110264652)
Regarding claim 47, Di teaches a computer-implemented method of processing queries for performing one or more functions ( fig 3, 6-7) , the method comprising: receiving a first query of a plurality of user queries by a communication system, wherein the first query defines at least one command, and the at least one command is classified as a type of function ( first input S602) ; after receiving the first query, receiving a second query of the plurality of user queries by the communication system, wherein the second query includes at least one entity ( second input and system determines whether the second input is a noun or not, additionally system also determines Keywords input also results in incomplete sentences, which makes it unreliable to recognize following-up questions based on whether a question is a complete sentence or not, Col 6, line 25-35, Col 10, line 44-47, Fig 5-6) ; determining the type of function for the at least one command of the first query for the at least one command ( system determines a conversation topic, Abstract) ; wherein the at least one command for an entity associated with performing the at least one command ( associate first and second command, Col 12, 1-15, Fig 3 and Fig 5) ; and performing, by the communication system, the at least one command from the first query based at least in part on the at least one entity from the second query according to the template ( generating a response, Fig 7)
Di does not explicitly mentions determining the type of function for the at least one command of the first query by ranking candidate types of functions; identifying a template based on the type of function for the at least one command, wherein the template comprises the at least one command for an entity associated with performing the at least one command; wherein the ranking of candidate types of functions is derived from a plurality of natural language processing techniques via a neural network responsive to an output of each of the plurality of natural language processing techniques
However, Roberge teaches determining the type of function for the at least one command of the first query by ranking candidate types of functions ( highest score by matching, Fig 5, Para 0138) ; identifying a template based on the type of function for the at least one command, wherein the template comprises the at least one command for an entity associated with performing the at least one command ( The term with the highest score is selected from the template hierarchy. A template is populated at step 540 with data elements,, Para 0138) ; wherein the ranking of candidate types of functions is derived from a plurality of natural language processing techniques via a neural network responsive to an output of each of the plurality of natural language processing techniques ( neural network, Para 0067, 0158)
It would have been obvious having the teachings of Di to further include the concept of Roberge at the time of invention so to have a find the best matching template to improve speech recognition
Regarding claim 48, analysis analogous to claim 47 is applicable.
Regarding claim 49, analysis analogous to claim 47 is applicable.
Claims 30-34, 39-42, 45-46 and 50-53 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Di (US 8204751) and further in view of Roberge ( US 20110264652) and further in view of Hasanuzzaman ( Feature Subset Selection Using Genetic Algorithm for Named Entity Recognition)
Regarding claim 30, Di as above in claim 47, teaches defining optimized feature sets with which to extract the candidate types of functions entities for particular types of commands ( training tree using feature, Fig 3)
Di and Roberge do not teach defining optimized feature set using a genetic algorithm.
However, Hasanuzzaman teach defining optimized feature sets with which to extract entities for particular types of commands using a genetic algorithm (The main features for the NER task are identified based on the different possible combinations of available word and tag contexts….. feature 1-8; GA based technique, Under 2 Named Entity Features and 3. Proposed Approach)
It would have been obvious having the teachings of Di and Roberge to further include the concept of Hasanuzzaman at the time of invention since using genetic algorithm improved performance to determine the entities ( Under Introduction, Page 154- 2-3rd para, Hasanuzzaman)
Regarding claim 31, Hasanuzzaman as above in claim 30, teach wherein the optimized feature set comprises one or more feature vectors ( feature vector, Fig 1 and selection, Fig 2)
Regarding claim 32, Hasanuzzaman as above in claim 30, teach wherein defining optimized feature sets comprises: performing at least one round of genetic selection to identify the optimized feature sets (output best chromosome and stop, Fig 2) , wherein one round of genetic selec---tion comprises: identifying at least one initial feature set ( initial population, Fig 2, Under 3. Proposed Approach) ; generating a plurality of random permutations from the at least one initial feature set ( mutation, 3.5) ; testing the plurality of random permutations using a dataset of test queries ( fitness computation, Under 3) ; determining a performance measure for each of the plurality of random permutations ( performance, Fig 2) ; and selecting a subset of the plurality of random permutations at least in part based on the performance measure of each respective random permutation ( output the best chromosome and stop, Fig 2, Under 3)
Regarding claim 33, Hasanuzzaman as above in claim 32, teach wherein the performance measure comprises an accuracy measure and a computational efficiency measure ( Recall, Precision, and the F-measure (also called F1-score) to evaluate accuracy—examples are table 3-5)
Regarding claim 34, Hasanuzzaman as above in claim 32, teach performing additional rounds of genetic selection after a first round of genetic selection has been performed, each additional round of genetic selection including the step of setting the subset of the plurality of random permutations as the at least one initial feature set ( 5. Steps 2 and 3 are repeated 3 times to perform 3-fold cross validation., Under 3. Proposed Approach)
Regarding claim 39, analysis analogous to claim 31 is applicable.
Regarding claim 40, analysis analogous to claim 32 is applicable.
Regarding claim 41, analysis analogous to claim 33, is applicable.
Regarding claim 42, analysis analogous to claim 34, is applicable.
Regarding claim 45, analysis analogous to claim 31 is applicable.
Regarding claim 46, analogous analysis to claim 32 is applicable.
Regarding claim 50, analysis analogous to claim 31 is applicable.
Regarding claim 51, analogous analysis to claim 31 is applicable.
Regarding claim 52, analysis analogous to claim 33 is applicable.
Regarding claim 53, analysis analogous to claim 34 is applicable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cooper ( US Pub: 20090077047 )
Varma ( US Pub: 20120254143)
Tankovich(US 20090259651)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Richa Sonifrank whose telephone number is (571)272-5357. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 7AM - 5:30PM.
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, Phan Hai 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.
/Richa Sonifrank/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
