DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that claims 8, 10-13, and 15 of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quatro, US 20220391420 A1, in view of Brown, US 20240346036 A1, in further view of Ghoche, US 20240386214 A1.
As per Claims 1 and 16, Quatro discloses:
- a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, that when executed by one or more computers configures the one or more computers to perform the steps (paragraph [0684] (whole paragraph));
- a. receive at an input of the one or more computers, unstructured data (paragraph [0341] (“Processing unstructured data into structured data that can be easily used by the hyperintelligence system is a common use for Data Preprocessing Logic.”); claim 72);
- b. output at a (network) interface of the one or more computers, a request to structure the unstructured data by a system, wherein the request conveys a data schema that defines how the unstructured data is to be structured (Figure 3; paragraph [0123] (client device); paragraph [0340]; paragraph [0341] (whole paragraph); claim 72);
- c. receive from the (network) interface structured data as a result of processing by the system and storing the structured data in a record maintained by the one or more computers (Figure 3; paragraph [0123] (client device; “Client Device 306 has a data store which may be the final destination of the data.”); paragraph [0340]; paragraph [0341] (whole paragraph); claim 72);
- a method executed by one or more computers comprising the steps (paragraph [0684] (whole paragraph)).
Quatro fails to disclose wherein the unstructured data is structured by a Generative AI system. Brown discloses wherein the unstructured data is structured by a Generative AI system (paragraph [0260] (“using the generative AI model to transform unstructured data corresponding to the second service request into the set of structured data inputs”)). 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 invention of Quatro such that the unstructured data is structured by a Generative AI system, as disclosed by Brown, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The modified Quatro fails to disclose wherein the data is stored in a CRM system. Ghoche discloses wherein the data is stored in a CRM system (paragraph [0080] (“An example of the Solve module is now described regarding automatically generating responses to customer issues. A wide variety of data might be potentially ingested and used to generate automatic responses. This includes a history of tickets and chats and whatever else a company may potentially have regarding CRMs/helpdesks like Zendesk® or Salesforce®.”)). 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 invention of the modified Quatro such that the data is stored in a CRM system, as disclosed by Ghoche, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claims 2 and 17, Quatro further discloses wherein the input is implemented by a GUI (paragraph [0021]).
As per Claim 5, Quatro further discloses wherein the request conveys the unstructured data, which includes text (paragraph [0123]; paragraph [0340]; paragraph [0341]; claim 72).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quatro in view of Brown in further view of Ghoche in further view of Copeland, US 20200153964 A1.
As per Claims 3 and 18, the modified Quatro fails to disclose wherein the GUI includes a control element. Copeland discloses wherein the GUI includes a control element (paragraph [0151]). 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 invention of the modified Quatro such that the GUI includes a control element, as disclosed by Copeland, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claims 4 and 19, the modified Quatro fails to disclose wherein the unstructured data includes text, the control element being configured to capture a text input from a user. Copeland further discloses wherein the unstructured data includes text, the control element being configured to capture a text input from a user (paragraph [0151]). 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 invention of the modified Quatro such that the unstructured data includes text, the control element being configured to capture a text input from a user, as disclosed by Copeland, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 20, Quatro further discloses wherein the request conveys the unstructured data, which includes text (paragraph [0123]; paragraph [0340]; paragraph [0341]; claim 72).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quatro in view of Brown in further view of Ghoche in further view of Siebel, US 20240202225 A1.
As per Claim 6, the modified Quatro fails to disclose wherein the data schema conveys key/value combinations. Siebel discloses wherein the data schema conveys key/value combinations (paragraph [0130]; paragraph [0133]). 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 invention of the modified Quatro such that the data schema conveys key/value combinations, as disclosed by Siebel, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 7, the modified Quatro fails to disclose wherein each key operates to guide the Generative AI system to identify a value in the unstructured data which corresponds to the key. Brown further discloses wherein each key operates to guide the Generative AI system to identify a value in the unstructured data which corresponds to the key (paragraph [0020]; paragraph [0466]; paragraph [0514]). 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 invention of the modified Quatro such that each key operates to guide the Generative AI system to identify a value in the unstructured data which corresponds to the key, as disclosed by Brown, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quatro in view of Brown in further view of Ghoche in further view of Cannell, US 20190327161 A1.
As per Claim 9, the modified Quatro fails to disclose wherein the request includes one or more JSON objects. Cannell discloses wherein the request includes one or more JSON objects (paragraph [0128]). 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 invention of the modified Quatro such that the request includes one or more JSON objects, as disclosed by Cannell, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quatro in view of Brown in further view of Ghoche in further view of Akella, US 9092802 B1.
As per Claim 14, the modified Quatro fails to disclose wherein the request is compliant with an XML format. Akella discloses wherein the request is compliant with an XML format (column 28, lines 54-65). 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 invention of the modified Quatro such that the request is compliant with an XML format, as disclosed by Akella, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10-13, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Gao, US 10019426 B2 (generating data format description language schema).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 PM.
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, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628