DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are considered in this Office 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 8/30/2024 has been acknowledged.
The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 20 of the current application (Hereby known as ‘989) are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application No. 12,093,799 (Hereby known as ‘799). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claims 1, 8, 14, and 20, Claims 1, 8, 14, and 20 of the current application (‘989) recites substantially similar steps of '799 – Claim 1.
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 20 of ‘989 recite the steps of:
determining, by a processor, from a log file, a question;
determining, by the processor and from the log file, a confidence rating assigned by a cognitive computing tool to the question;
determining, by the processor and from the log file, an expert-determined validity of the question;
determining, by the processor and from the log file, an accuracy of an answer associated with the question;
determining, by the processor and from the log file, a category of the question;
generating, by the processor, instructions to cause presentation of a user interface on an electronic display of an electronic device, the user interface comprising a representation of at least one of the confidence rating, the expert-determined validity, the accuracy, or the category as one or more metrics indicating a performance of the cognitive computing tool; and
transmitting, by the processor, the instructions to the electronic device.
Whereas Claim 1 of ‘799 states:
accessing a log file including the plurality of questions, and a confidence rating assigned by the cognitive computing tool to the at least one answer to each question;
determining a validity of each question, by an expert in a subject matter of each question, and adding the validity to the log file to create an augmented log file;
determining an accuracy of the at least one answer to each question, and adding the accuracy to the augmented log file;
determining a category of each question using a text analytics tool, and adding the category of each question to the augmented log file; and
formatting by an electronic processor and visually communicating on an electronic display a representation of at least some of the data contained in the augmented log file as one or more metrics describing performance of the cognitive computing tool.
These are obvious variants of each other as both recite substantially the same limitations. Further, elimination of an element or its functions is deemed to be obvious in light of prior art teachings of at least the recited element or its functions (see In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184, 186; 311 F2d 581 (CCPA 1963)), thereby rendering the elimination of any elements recited in the claims of the related patent (that are not recited in the instant claims) obvious.
Thus, Claims 1, 8, 14, and 20 of the current application are obvious variants of claim 1 in ‘799.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “unit” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “configured to” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “configured to” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) are in Claim 20 and consist of the limitations of four instances of a “means for determining…” and a “means for generating…”.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 20 is directed at use of four instances of a “means for determining…” and a “means for generating…”. These means for determining and generating are not defined in the specification as to what these configurations would be, other than what functions they perform. For instance, the Specification states:
“[0079] As used herein any reference to "one embodiment" or "an embodiment" means that a particular element, feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with the embodiment is included in at least one embodiment. The appearances of the phrase "in one embodiment" in various places in the specification are not necessarily all referring to the same embodiment.”
Which is one of only two recitation of what a means is in the Specification, and the Specification generally states what these means are capable of doing, but does not define what these means are or how these means perform the limitations of the claims. There are no details nor a description of the means to perform these processes/limitations. To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that a patent must describe the technology; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The dependent Claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims and thus are similarly rejected.
Therefore, the claims and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), written description, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
Claim 20 recites use of four instances of a “means for determining…” and a “means for generating…”. Applicant’s specification is silent as to what these means may be for these as per the specification excerpt above, and as best taken from above, this is hardware which is in communication with the device. For Examination purposes this will be taken as any hardware which can perform the limitations of the claims.
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.
Alice – Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 20 recite the limitations for determining a question (Collecting and Analyzing Information, an Observation and Evaluation; Managing Human Activity, i.e. Managing comments and conversation, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determining a confidence rating assigned by a cognitive computing tool to the question (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation; Managing Human Activity, i.e. Managing comments and conversation, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determining an expert-determined validity of the question (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation; Managing Human Activity, i.e. Managing comments and conversation, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determining an accuracy of an answer associated with the question (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation; Managing Human Activity, i.e. Managing comments and conversation, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determining a category of the question (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation; Managing Human Activity, i.e. Managing comments and conversation, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), generating instructions to cause presentation of a representation of at least one of the confidence rating, the expert-determined validity, the accuracy, or the category as one or more metrics indicating a performance of the cognitive computing tool (Analyzing and Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an Evaluation and Judgment; Managing Human Activity, i.e. Managing comments and conversation, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and transmitting the instructions (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, a Judgment; Managing Human Activity, i.e. Managing comments and conversation, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of managing comments and conversations, which is Managing Human Activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor, log file, user interface, electronic display, electronic device, system, medium, memory, and means for determining and generating, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Managing Human Activity, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for Managing Human Activity, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The processor, log file, user interface, electronic display, electronic device, system, medium, memory, and means for determining and generating are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmitting steps above are at best insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0070] Additionally, certain embodiments are described herein as including logic or a number of routines, subroutines, applications, or instructions. These may constitute either software (e.g., code embodied on a non-transitory, machine-readable medium) or hardware. In hardware, the routines, etc., are tangible units capable of performing certain operations and may be configured or arranged in a certain manner. In exemplary embodiments, one or more computer systems (e.g., a standalone, client or server computer system) or one or more hardware modules of a computer system (e.g., a processor or a group of processors) may be configured by software (e.g., an application or application portion) as a hardware module that operates to perform certain operations as described herein.”
Which shows that these steps can be performed on any generic computing device with a processor and memory, which can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, phone, desktop, etc., and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the system, medium, interface, processors, etc., nor the receiving and transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-19 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Block (U.S. Publication No. 2017/014,0289) in view of Giffels (U.S. Patent No. 9,633,309).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, 14, and 20, Block, a system and method for automatically assessing question answering system performances across possible confidence values, teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
determining, by a processor, from a log file, a question ([0075] Performance assessment system/processor obtains the question and answers from system results which is a log file);
determining a confidence rating assigned by a cognitive computing tool to the question ([0079] The QA system results/log file include questions posed, answers returned, and a confidence value for each answer);
determining an accuracy of an answer associated with the question ([0070] [0076] [0083] Each answer is analyzed to determine the correctness (i.e. accuracy) of the answer, wherein the correctness, or correct answer probability, is part of the evaluation output);
determining a category of the question ([0055] and [0077], Fig. 5 - Each question is analyzed using natural language processing to extract a topic (i.e. category) of the question, wherein the evaluation output includes whether question are on/off topic (thu including the topic/category of the question);
generating, by the processor, instructions to cause presentation of a user interface on an electronic display of an electronic device, the user interface comprising a representation of at least one of the confidence rating, the expert-determined validity, the accuracy, or the category as one or more metrics indicating a performance of the cognitive computing tool ([0076] and Fig. 5 The evaluation results are displayed on an interface of an electronic display of a device and [0070-72] displayed metrics includes confidence thresholds (associated with the confidence rating assigned to the answers) and performance statistics across various confidence thresholds, wherein the confidence is associated with on-topic/off-topic questions (i.e. selected validity));
transmitting the instructions to the electronic device ([0076] and Fig. 5 The evaluation results are transmitted/displayed on an interface of an electronic display of a device)
Although Block teaches question and answer results it does not explicitly state a validity score
Giffels, a system and method for displaying quality of questions being asked on a questioning answering system, teaches determining an expert-determined validity of the question as in C. 1, L. 65 – C. 2 L4 and C. 17 L. 52 – C. 18, L. 4 where a question strength calculator analyzes each question to determine a strength score indicating the strength/quality (i.e. validity) of the question, wherein the determined score is added to the question history (i.e. log file).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the question and answering system which utilizes accuracy and scoring of Block with the question and answering system of Giffels as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to managing questions and answers, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would lead to better questions the end user asks, and in theory, the fewer questions the user will ask to get a solution, thus reducing the load on the QA system, improving the user's experience, and increasing the return on investment for the customer as taught in Giffels.
Examiner notes Block teaches a means for determining and generating, storage medium, system, and processor ([0006-7] system/apparatus with memory, medium, processor, interface, and [0071] modules (means) for and [0073] interface)
Regarding Claim 2, Block teaches wherein determining the accuracy of the answer associated with the question comprises assigning a numerical accuracy rating to the answer ([0090] results are numbers in a range)
Regarding Claim 5, Block teaches further comprising:
determining, by the processor and from the log file, based on the accuracy, a trend over time regarding the accuracy of answers associated with the question ([0069] The metrics include a precision curve/trend that plots precision/accuracy versus number of questions answered (i.e. over time))
generating the user interface to further comprise an indication of the trend ([0076] and Fig. 5 of Block - All evaluation results are transmitted/displayed on an interface of an electronic display of a device).
Regarding Claim 6, Block teaches further comprising:
receiving, at the processor, via user interface, user-selected filter data [[0070] information displayed is filtered by the selected confidence threshold and
updating, by the processor and based on the user-selected filter data, the representation ([0076] and Fig. 5 of Block - All evaluation results are transmitted/displayed on an interface of an electronic display of a device, and this is redisplaying of information, which is updating here)
Regarding Claim 9, Block teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
determining, from the log file, an alternative answer associated with the question and generated by the cognitive computing tool ([0085] alternative/different answers are used to compare and contrast with the system/tool) and
generating the user interface to further comprise an indication of the alternative answer ([0076] and Fig. 5 of Block - All evaluation results are transmitted/displayed on an interface of an electronic display of a device).
Regarding Claim 10, Block teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
determining a trend over time regarding the expert-determined validity of the question ([0069] The metrics include a precision curve/trend that plots precision/accuracy versus number of questions answered (i.e. over time)) and
generating the user interface to further comprise an indication of the trend ([0076] and Fig. 5 of Block - All evaluation results are transmitted/displayed on an interface of an electronic display of a device).
Block does not teach a trend.
Giffels teaches determining an expert-determined validity of the question as in C. 1, L. 65 – C. 2 L4 and C. 17 L. 52 – C. 18, L. 4 where a question strength calculator analyzes each question to determine a strength score indicating the strength/quality (i.e. validity) of the question, wherein the determined score is added to the question history (i.e. log file).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the question and answering system which utilizes accuracy and scoring of Block with the question and answering system of Giffels as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to managing questions and answers, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would lead to better questions the end user asks, and in theory, the fewer questions the user will ask to get a solution, thus reducing the load on the QA system, improving the user's experience, and increasing the return on investment for the customer as taught in Giffels.
Regarding Claim 11, Block teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
determining, from the log file, a format of the answer ([0094] a format is used in conjunction with the answer and questions); and
generating the user interface to further comprise an indication of the answer based on the format ([0076] and Fig. 5 of Block - All evaluation results are transmitted/displayed on an interface of an electronic display of a device).
Regarding Claims 12 and 16, Block teaches wherein the operations further comprise: determining, from the log file, a comparison of the accuracy of the question and a second accuracy of a second question , where the accuracy is a metric, ([0070] [0076] [0083] Each answer is analyzed to determine the correctness (i.e. accuracy) of the answer, wherein the correctness, or correct answer probability, is part of the evaluation output with the accuracies being [0042] compared to each other);
and generating the user interface to further comprise an indication of the comparison ([0076] and Fig. 5 of Block - All evaluation results are transmitted/displayed on an interface of an electronic display of a device).
Regarding Claims 13 and 15, Block teaches wherein the operations further comprise generating the user interface to further comprise at least one of an indication of the question or an indication of the answer ([0055-56] questions and answers are indicated by the interface such as in [0076] where all evaluation results are transmitted/displayed on an interface of an electronic display of a device).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Block and Giffels teaches wherein the accuracy of the answer comprises an expert-determined accuracy for the same reasons and rationale as in Claims 1, 2, and 5 above which teach the Q&A accuracy and expert-determination.
Regarding Claim 19, Block teaches wherein the category of the question is determined using a text analytics tool ([0035] content creator and other tools in use with questions and categories as in Claim 1 above.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Block (U.S. Publication No. 2017/014,0289) in view of Giffels (U.S. Patent No. 9,633,309) in further view of Isensee (U.S. Publication No. 2014/027,2909)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Block and Giffels teaches further comprising:
determining an analysis s associated with at least one of the question or the answer (As in Claims 1 and 2 above; and
generating the user interface to further comprise an indication of the analysis ([0076] and Fig. 5 of Block - All evaluation results are transmitted/displayed on an interface of an electronic display of a device).
Neither Block nor Giffel teaches analyzation of comments.
Isensee, a system and method for analyzing results of question and answer systems, teaches analyzing one or more comments by the one or more users, and adding the analysis of the one or more comments to an augmented log file stored in an electronic memory as in [0093-96] and Fig. 7 where the user feedback rating system analyzes user feedback/ratings (i.e. comments) and outputs the analysis and [0092] analyzing user feedback facilitates a more accurate QA system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the performance assessment system of Block and Giffels with the user feedback rating system of Isensee as they are all analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to managing conversations, questions, and answers, and this would lead to an improved system which would facilitate a more accurate QA system due to increased confidence in the results as taught in [0025] and [0028] of Isensee.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Block (U.S. Publication No. 2017/014,0289) in view of Giffels (U.S. Patent No. 9,633,309) in further view of Chandrasekaran (U.S. Publication No. 2014/027,2909)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Block and Giffelse teaches further comprising:
determining an analysis s associated with at least one of the question or the answer (As in Claims 1 and 2 above); and
generating the user interface to further comprise an indication of the analysis ([0076] and Fig. 5 of Block - All evaluation results are transmitted/displayed on an interface of an electronic display of a device).
Neither Block nor Giffel teaches analyzation of sentiments.
Chandrasekaran, a method for recommending content to ingest as corpora based on interaction history in natural language question and answering systems, teaches an analysis of one or more user sentiments associated with at least one of the question or the answer as in [0022] and [0033] where there is various context information, including user age, gender, and sentiment information which is added to the interaction history database
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis of the performance assessment system of Block and Giffels with the data of Isensee as they are all analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to managing conversations, questions, and answers, and this would lead to an improved system which would quality of answers provided and improve recommendations as taught in [0002] of Chandrasekaran.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Block and Giffels teaches updating the representation as in Claim 6 above. Block teaches determining the accuracy of the answer associated with the question comprises assigning a numerical accuracy rating to the answer ([0090] results are numbers in a range) and the category as well as the metrics indicating the performance of the computing tool in the Claims above.
Neither Block nor Giffels teaches removing of one of the these metrics.
Chandrasekaran teaches removing of metrics with weighted values depending on a threshold as taught in [0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis of the performance assessment system of Block and Giffels with the data of Isensee as they are all analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to managing conversations, questions, and answers, and this would lead to an improved system which would quality of answers provided and improve recommendations as taught in [0002] of Chandrasekaran.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Block (U.S. Publication No. 2017/014,0289) in view of Giffels (U.S. Patent No. 9,633,309) in further view of Isensee (U.S. Publication No. 2014/027,2909)
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Block and Giffels teaches determining, from the log file, data associated with the question as in Claim 1 above; and generating the user interface to further comprise an indication of the demographic data ([0076] and Fig. 5 of Block - All evaluation results are transmitted/displayed on an interface of an electronic display of a device).
Neither teaches demographic data
Bradley teaches [0128] demographic data being used in conjunction with questions and answers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis of the performance assessment system of Block and Giffels with the demographic data of Bradley as they are all analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to managing conversations, questions, and answers, and this would lead to an improved system which would improve accuracy of the answers through efficiently identifying content relating to queries as taught in [0084] of Bradley.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170140289 A1
Block; Alexander M. et al.
Automatically Assessing Question Answering System Performance Across Possible Confidence Values
US 20170109390 A1
Bradley; Lisa M.W. et al.
Answer Change Notifications Based on Changes to User Profile Information
US 20160196491 A1
Chandrasekaran; Swaminathan et al.
Method For Recommending Content To Ingest As Corpora Based On Interaction History In Natural Language Question And Answering Systems
US 20140272909 A1
Isensee; Scott H. et al.
Results of Question and Answer Systems
US 9633309 B2
Giffels; Kenneth M. et al.
Displaying quality of question being asked a question answering system
US 20260260153 A1
Cao; Yudong
CHARACTERIZATION USING NON-CONVENTIONAL MODALITIES OF COMPUTATION
US 20220059196 A1
Lee; Francis et al.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ENGINE FOR GENERATING CANDIDATE DRUGS USING EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION AND PEPTIDE DRUG OPTIMIZATION
US 20210272040 A1
Johnson; David et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LANGUAGE AND SPEECH PROCESSING WITH ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
US 20200401809 A1
Chang; Yu-Han et al.
METHODS AND SYSTEMS OF COMBINING VIDEO CONTENT WITH ONE OR MORE AUGMENTATIONS TO PRODUCE AUGMENTED VIDEO
US 20200302123 A1
Mittal; Sanjay et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING A MODEL-BASED INTELLIGENT CONVERSATIONAL AGENT
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 9/10/2026
Prosecution Insights