DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Status of the application
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filed on 08/26/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending for this examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 09/16/2024, 05/02/2025, 07/01/2025, 11/24/2025 and 03/23/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Foreign Priority Claimed
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on August 31, 2023 and August 25, 2023. Certified copies of the application 202311434188.6 and 202311088356.0 have been received as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Objection to the specification
Specification recites in paragraph [0003] last sentence “The user can complete diversified operations by means of plugins during interaction with the digital assistant. It is now a technical problem to be explored about how to quickly and quickly create a plugin meeting a user requirement.” It appears that the sentence should have been “The user can complete diversified operations by means of plugins during interaction with the digital assistant. It is now a technical problem to be explored about how to quickly .” Appropriate correction or explanation is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims use the term “digital assistant”. The specification recites in [0031] “As briefly mentioned above, a digital assistant may assist a user in using a terminal device
or application.” Further specification recites in paragraph [0034] “In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the digital assistant is configured to interact with a user. An interaction window between the user and the digital assistant may be presented in the user interface. The interaction window between the user and the digital assistant may include a session window, and the interaction between the user and the digital assistant in the session window may be presented in a form of a session message. Alternatively or additionally, the interaction window between the user and the digital assistant may further include other types of windows, such as a window of a floating window mode, where the user may trigger the digital assistant to perform a corresponding operation by inputting an instruction, selecting a shortcut instruction, or the like.” In light of the above description, the examiner considers any application running on a terminal device with a user interface can be considered as a digital assistant. For example, a web browser can be considered a digital assistant because it assists a user in browsing web pages using a user interface. An application’s user interface can be considered a digital assistant because it provides a user interaction window. Similarly, a chatbot’s or a robot’s user interface can be considered a digital assistant. In case, the applicant wants the interpretation of the term “digital assistant” to be more specific, the applicant needs to add the definition of the term in the claims without adding new matter.
Claims use term “plugin”. The term has not been defined. The way it has been described in the specification or in the claims, it appears to be an application. The specification recites in [0003] last two sentences “The user can complete diversified operations by means of plugins during interaction with the digital assistant. It is now a technical problem to be explored about how to quickly [[and quickly]] create a plugin meeting a user requirement.” This shows that a “plugin”, as used here, is just an application which is used for meeting users’ requirements. It does not mention that the plugin is an extension or add-in of an existing application. As such, examiner interprets the term “plugin” as an application.
Double Patenting
Claims 1 and 10 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim 1 of Application No. 18/812,878. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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).
Comparison of the claims of the two applications are shown below:
Claim
Examining claims (18/815,337)
Claim
Co-pending Claims (18/812,878)
1
A method for plugin creation, comprising:
1
A method for creating a plug-in, comprising:
providing a creation page for creating a target plugin, wherein the creation page presents a plugin creation template corresponding to a type of the target plugin to be created, and the plugin creation template comprises at least one information input component;
providing a plug-in creation portal in a first page associated with an interaction window between a digital assistant and a first user;providing a second page for creating a target plug-in based on a selection of the plug-in creation portal;
obtaining plugin creation information about the target plugin at least via the at least one information input component in the plugin creation template; and
obtaining inputted plug-in creation information about the target plug-in via the second page; and
releasing the target plugin based on the plugin creation information, the released target plugin being selectable for interaction between a user and a digital assistant.
in response to receiving an operation of releasing the target plug-in, releasing the target plug-in based on the plug-in creation information, the released target plug-in being selectable for an interaction between a user and the digital assistant.
It can be shown that claim 15 of the current application is substantially similar to claim 1.
As such, claims 1 and 15 are not patentably distinguishable from claim 1 of the co-pending application. As such, claims 1 and 15 are rejected. Claims 2 – 9 and 16-17 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 15, 16 and 17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anning et al. (hereinafter Anning, Publication No.: CN114020381A) in view of Srivastava et al. (hereinafter Srivastava, Patent No.: US 11,861,377).
As per claim 1, Anning teaches,
A method for plugin creation, comprising:
providing a creation page for creating a target plugin, wherein the creation page presents a plugin creation template corresponding to a type of the target plugin to be created, and the plugin creation template comprises at least one information input component; (Anning recites in [n0007] “The display is configured to show the interface of the terminal device during operation;”. Anning recites in [n0009] “The processor is configured to, in response to a received add plugin operation, display a plugin selection interface on a monitor;”. The terminal interface is plugin creation page, which has an add plugin section. Here the plugin selection includes plugin templates.)
releasing the target plugin based on the plugin creation information, the released target plugin being selectable for interaction between a user and a digital assistant. (Anning recites in [0038] “The terminal device, plugin deployment method, and storage medium provided in this application embodiment allow users to select a target plugin in the plugin selection interface. This enables the user to determine at least one candidate position for displaying the icon of the target plugin in the currently displayed first desktop. This allows the user to select the target position for displaying the icon of the target plugin from the determined candidate positions. This process not only simplifies user operations and helps users quickly deploy desktop plugins, but also helps users save time.” Here “terminal device” is the user device and the application which creates and helps users to select position of the icon is the “digital assistant”. Please see the “Claim Interpretation” section for an interpretation of the term “digital assistant”. This shows that the user selects and places the plug-in icon on the desktop and hence deploy or releases the plug-in.)
Anning teaches plug-in creation by selecting plug-in templates from a user interface. Anning does not explicitly teach, “obtaining plugin creation information about the target plugin at least via the at least one information input component in the plugin creation template;”. However, in analogous art of plug-in creation, Srivastava teaches,
obtaining plugin creation information about the target plugin at least via the at least one information input component in the plugin creation template; and (Srivastava recites in column 15, stating on line 45, “FIG. 9 is an example user interface screen 900 that lists created/available extension groups, and can be used to create
new extension groups or to associate existing extension groups with particular apps……. In particular, selecting navigation option 908 causes a user interface screen to be displayed that shows custom fields that have been created, or allows a user
to create custom fields, and then associate them with apps.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Anning of Plug-in creation by incorporating the teaching “obtaining plugin creation information about the target plugin at least via the at least one information input component in the plugin creation template;” of Srivastava. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of obtaining plug-in requirements as input from a user so that the plug-in meets the user’s needs.
As per claim 2, Srivastava teaches,
wherein providing a creation page for creating a target plugin comprises: receiving a plugin creation request indicating a type of a plugin to be created; and providing the creation page for creating the target plugin based on the plugin creation request. (Srivastava Fig. 9. Srivastava recites in column 15, starting on line 45, “FIG. 9 is an example user interface screen 900 that lists created/available extension groups, and can be used to create new extension groups or to associate existing extension groups with particular apps.”)
As per claim 3, Srivastava teaches,
wherein the plugin creation template is determined based on template information corresponding to the type of the target plugin, the template information indicating at least one information input component required to create a plugin associated with the type. (Srivastava recites in column 15, stating on line 45, “FIG. 9 is an example user interface screen 900 that lists created/available extension groups, and can be used to create new extension groups or to associate existing extension groups with particular apps.” Srivastava recites in column 15, stating on line 66, “The user interface screen 900 includes a search interface 920 that allows a user to search for particular extension groups, and a user interface control 924 that can be selected to create a new extension group.”)
As per claims 15, 16 and 17, these are device claims that substantially parallel the limitations of the method claims 1, 2 and 3, respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a device.
Claims 4, 5 and 6 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anning and Srivastava as applied to claim 1 in view of Fu (Publication
CN111753075A).
As per claim 4, Anning and Srivastava teach plug-in creation. They do not explicitly teach “wherein a type corresponding to the target plugin is a question answering plugin, and the plugin creation template at least comprises: a first information input component configured to specify one or more datasets corresponding to the question answering plugin.” However, in analogous art of plug-in creation Fu teaches,
wherein a type corresponding to the target plugin is a question answering plugin, and the plugin creation template at least comprises: a first information input component configured to specify one or more datasets corresponding to the question answering plugin. (Fu recites in [0062] 4th paragraph, “Specifically, based on the target robot data, the question-and-answer data of the target customer service robot corresponding to the creation request is obtained, including: performing knowledge processing on the target robot data to obtain customer service robot knowledge data; based on the customer service robot knowledge data, obtaining the question attribute information, question grouping information, question similarity information, and question activation status of each question; and generating the question-and-answer data of the target customer service robot corresponding to the creation request based on the question attribute information, question grouping information, question similarity information, and question activation status of each question.” Here “customer service robot” is the question answering application or question answering plugin.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Anning and Srivastava of Plug-in creation by incorporating the teaching “wherein a type corresponding to the target plugin is a question answering plugin, and the plugin creation template at least comprises: a first information input component configured to specify one or more datasets corresponding to the question answering plugin.” of Srivastava. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of specifying which database meets the user’s requirement and set the plug-in to use the specified database.
As per claim 5, Fu teaches,
The method of claim 4, wherein the first information input component comprises at least: a first portion configured to input a type of the one or more datasets; and a second portion configured to input a source of the one or more datasets. (Fu recites in [0064] “Serial Number | Parameter Name | Type | Description 1 | question_id | String | Unique ID of the question 2 | group_id | String | ID of the group to which the question belongs 3 | group_name | String | Name of the group to which the question belongs…..”.)
As per claim 6, Fu teaches,
wherein the plugin creation template further comprises at least one of the following: a second information input component configured to input identification information of the target plugin, wherein the identification information comprises a text identifier and/or an image identifier; or a third information input component configured to input description text of the target plugin. (Fu recites in [0069] paragraph 6 “Specifically, based on the user's question-and-answer intent and the associated knowledge grouping information, the response result corresponding to the user's question-and-answer intent is obtained, including: when the user's question-and-answer intent matches the intent in the associated knowledge grouping information, the result data corresponding to the matched intent is used as the response result corresponding to the user's question-and-answer intent;”. )
Claim 7 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anning and Srivastava as applied to claim 1 in view of Jiaxin (Publication: CN113190307A).
As per claim 7, Anning and Srivastava teach plug-in creation. They do not explicitly teach, “wherein the plugin creation information further comprises permission information, the permission information at least indicating a range of users accessible to the target plugin.” However, in analogous art of plug-in creation, Jiaxin teaches,
wherein the plugin creation information further comprises permission information, the permission information at least indicating a range of users accessible to the target plugin. (Jiaxin recites in [n0061] “In this embodiment of the disclosure, after adding the virtual account corresponding to the virtual robot to the session, the permission settings interface of the virtual robot is displayed. The user can then set the permission scope of the virtual robot based on the permission settings interface, so that the virtual robot can perform the operation type corresponding to the permission scope. This ensures that the operation performed by the virtual robot is authorized by the user, thereby improving user stickiness.“ Here the robot is equivalent to the target plugin.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Anning and Srivastava of Plug-in creation by incorporating the teaching “wherein the plugin creation information further comprises permission information, the permission information at least indicating a range of users accessible to the target plugin.” of Jiaxin. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of setting proper access of the plug-in such that users of the plug-in has restricted data access as required by the specification of the plug-in.
Claim 8 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anning and Srivastava as applied to claim 1 in view of Blevins (Patent No.: US 7,519,976).
As per claim 8, Anning and Srivastava teach plug-in creation. They do not explicitly teach, “wherein the plugin creation information further comprises: plugin processing capability information pre-configured for the plugin creation template, wherein the plugin processing capability information corresponds to the type of the target plugin.” However, in analogous art of plug-in creation, Blevins teaches,
wherein the plugin creation information further comprises: plugin processing capability information pre-configured for the plugin creation template, wherein the plugin processing capability information corresponds to the type of the target plugin. (Blevins recites in column 11 bottom paragraph “The plug-in manager can also load or unload plug-ins, using load() or unload() methods, respectively, based on their configuration. A plug-in can be available only after it is loaded. When the plug-in is loaded, the Plug-in Manager can call a getPluginCapabilitiesinfo( ) method to get detailed plug-in information, and the plug-in can register for notification messages. At this time, all plug-in classes become visible to the BPM client.” This shows plugin capabilities can be obtained from a loaded plugin, which means the capabilities are pre-configured for the plugin.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Anning and Srivastava of Plug-in creation by incorporating the teaching “wherein the plugin creation information further comprises: plugin processing capability information pre-configured for the plugin creation template, wherein the plugin processing capability information corresponds to the type of the target plugin.” of Blevins. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of documenting the capabilities of the plug-in in the plug-in so that a user can check the capabilities of the plug-in before using it.
Claim 9 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anning and Srivastava as applied to claim 1 in view of Lu et al. (hereinafter Lu, Publication: US 2025/0103357).
As per claim 9, Anning and Srivastava teach plug-in creation. They do not explicitly teach, “wherein releasing the target plugin based on the plugin creation information comprises: releasing the target plugin in response to an approval of the plugin creation information.” However, in analogous art of plug-in creation, Lu teaches,
wherein releasing the target plugin based on the plugin creation information comprises: releasing the target plugin in response to an approval of the plugin creation information. (Lu recites in [0051] starting on line 4, “The target server may obtain identity information of an organization/individual that sets a plug-in at the target mini program. If the identity information of the mini program manager is consistent with identity information of any organization/ individual that sets a plug-in at the target mini program, it may indicate that there is a low risk for the mini program manager to deploy the plug-in at the target mini program, and then its participation request can be approved.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Anning and Srivastava of Plug-in creation by incorporating the teaching “wherein releasing the target plugin based on the plugin creation information comprises: releasing the target plugin in response to an approval of the plugin creation information.” of Lu. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of releasing the plug-in, when it is approved to be released by proper authority after proper testing and quality check.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10, 11, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fu (Publication No.: CN111753075A)
As per claim 10, Fu teaches,
A method for data query, comprising:
determining a target data source of a question answering plugin used by a digital assistant based on a first configuration operation of a user; (Examiner interprets the term “target data source” to mean a database which is used by a “question and answering” application. Fu recites in [0008] “Therefore, it is necessary to provide a method, apparatus, computer equipment, and storage medium for creating customer service robot question-and-answer data that can improve service efficiency, addressing the aforementioned technical problems.” Here the “question-and-answer data” or a “knowledgebase” is the target data source. Fu recites in [0005] “Before enabling intelligent customer service robots, the data required by the robot is usually stored in a knowledge base in advance. When the intelligent customer service robot is working, it reads the knowledge stored in the knowledge base. Therefore, the knowledge base is crucial in the creation of customer service robots.” This teaches determining a target data source.)
receiving a data query request of the user in an interaction between the user and the digital assistant; and (Fu recites [0069] starting at line 12, “After the customer service robot is launched, inquirers can initiate question-and-answer requests through the inquiry terminal. The intent of the question-and-answer request can be identified through the trained natural language understanding model to obtain the user's question-and-answer intent.” Here “inquiry terminal” is the digital assistant and the customer service robot can be considered as a plugin. Actually the robot’s user interface is the “inquiry terminal” which interacts with the user and it is the digital assistant.)
presenting a query result of the digital assistant to the user, wherein the query result is obtained by the digital assistant which matches the data query request with the target data source using the question answering plugin. (Fu recites in [0069] starting at line 25, “Then, obtain the knowledge grouping information associated with the legal robot, and based on the user's question-and-answer intent and the associated knowledge grouping information, obtain the response results corresponding to the user's question-and-answer intent.”) Here the robot is the plugin which gets the answer from its knowledgebase [or database].)
As per claim 11, Fu teaches,
wherein the target data source comprises one or more online documents. (As mentioned above target data source is a knowledgebase or a database. Fu recites in [0072] starting at line 10, “The knowledge base can be rapidly expanded by learning from online questions and data from human agents.”)
As per claims 18 and 19, these are device claims that substantially parallel the limitations of the method claims 10 and 11, respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as an apparatus.
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.
Claims 12, 13 and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu as applied to claim 10 in view of Jiaxin (Publication No.: CN113190307A).
As per claim 12, Fu teaches,
wherein the data query request indicates a data identifier to be queried, (Fu recites in [0080] starting on line 1, “In one embodiment, the device for creating customer service robot question and answer data further includes a robot information storage module, used to determine the target identifier of the target customer service robot and the corresponding target knowledge grouping information;”.)
Fu teaches query of knowledge database. Fu does not explicitly teach, “and the query result is obtained by: determining, from the target data source, a set of data entities to which the user has permission;”. However, in analogous art of database query Jiaxin teaches,
and the query result is obtained by:
determining, from the target data source, a set of data entities to which the user has permission; (Jiaxin recites in [n0061] “In this embodiment of the disclosure, after adding the virtual account corresponding to the virtual robot to the session, the permission settings interface of the virtual robot is displayed. The user can then set the permission scope of the virtual robot based on the permission settings interface, so that the virtual robot can perform the operation type corresponding to the permission scope. This ensures that the operation performed by the virtual robot is authorized by the user, thereby improving user stickiness.” Here the robot is the plugin. The user sets up what data the robot has permission to access.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Fu and Jiaxin of database query by incorporating the teaching “the query result is obtained by: determining, from the target data source, a set of data entities to which the user has permission;” of Jiaxin. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of access of data by data query only to which the user has permission.
Fu and Jiaxin teach database query. They do not explicitly teach, “filtering at least one data entity matching with the data identifier from the set of data entities based on index information of the target data source; and presenting the at least one determined data entity to the user.” However, in analogous art of query. Ait-Mohktar teaches,
filtering at least one data entity matching with the data identifier from the set of data entities based on index information of the target data source; and (Ait-Mohktar recites in [0002] “A significant part of the information available in knowledge resources is stored as text, string literals, or as identifiers, i.e., strings of characters referring to entities and concepts which are used for collecting facts about entities. …. Existing query languages and query engines used in knowledge base (KB) systems often permit querying using regex as filters to constrain query results, or for transforming fetched string literals using regex capturing groups and backreferences.”)
presenting the at least one determined data entity to the user. (Ait-Mohktar Fig. 2 step S110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Fu of database query by incorporating the teaching “filtering at least one data entity matching with the data identifier from the set of data entities based on index information of the target data source; and presenting the at least one determined data entity to the user.” of Ait-Mohktar. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of access of data query and present the results according filtering requirements of the data.
As per claim 13, Fu teaches,
wherein the data identifier comprises: an entity identifier or a folder identifier to be queried. (Fu recites in [0080] “In one embodiment, the device for creating customer service robot question and answer data further includes a robot information storage module, used to determine the target identifier of the target customer service robot and the corresponding target knowledge grouping information; and to update the preset correspondence between the robot identifier and the knowledge grouping information based on the target identifier and the target knowledge grouping information.”)
As per claim 20, this is a device claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a device.
Claim 14 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu, Jiaxin and Ait-Mohktar as applied to claim 12 in view of Zheng (Publication No.: CN113190307A).
As per claim 14, Fu, Jiaxin and Ait-Mohktar teach database query. They do not explicitly teach, “wherein filtering at least one data entity from the set of data entities that matches the data identifier comprises: filtering, based on index information constructed for the set of data entities, from the set of data entities, at least one data entity that matches the data identifier, using the data identifier.” However, in analogous art of database query, Zheng teaches,
wherein filtering at least one data entity from the set of data entities that matches the data identifier comprises:
filtering, based on index information constructed for the set of data entities, from the set of data entities, at least one data entity that matches the data identifier, using the data identifier. (Zheng recites in [0106] “Functions of this module include: searching a knowledge base (for example, the edge knowledge base 220) based on runtime data and a target knowledge type query command, extracting knowledge and indexes at different levels using extractors at different levels in the knowledge base, and providing feedbacks. Specifically, the target knowledge type query command is parsed using a query command, to obtain a list of query knowledge items; and based on the list of query knowledge items, the knowledge base search module 310 performs searching and sorting using a task index table, and then outputs target knowledge and candidate to-be-filled knowledge. For example, as shown in FIG. 5B, the knowledge base search module 310 includes the following sub-modules: a knowledge query module 311, a multi-task knowledge and index extraction module 312, and a multi-task index query and sorting module 313. The following will describe functions of the sub-modules included in the knowledge base search module 310 in detail with reference to FIG. 5B, and details are not described herein.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Fu, Jiaxin and Ait-Mohktar of database query by incorporating the teaching “wherein filtering at least one data entity from the set of data entities that matches the data identifier comprises: filtering, based on index information constructed for the set of data entities, from the set of data entities, at least one data entity that matches the data identifier, using the data identifier.” of Zheng. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of access of data query using data identifier to find the data from database.
References of Note
Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, references, or figures in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §§ 2141.02 and 2123.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAIN MORSHED whose telephone number is (571)272-3335. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 12:00 PM – 9 PM Eastern Time. The email address for the examiner is hossain.morshed@uspto.gov.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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, Wei Mui can be reached on (571)272-3708.
/HOSSAIN M MORSHED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
September 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights