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 3/27/2026, 3/25/2026 and 8/19/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Listed claims are objected to for the informalities shown and may be addressed with suggested amendments:
Claim 16 should be dependent on claim 14.
Claim 18 should be dependent on claim 14.
Claim 19 should be dependent on claim 18.
Claim 20 should be dependent on claim 18.
Applicant is advised to review all claims for any potential claim objection issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14, and therefore claims 16-20 which depends therefrom are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation … cause the computer to perform operations. …" There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what the refers to. For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the computer as a computer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-12, 14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more. The claims as whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Independent claims 1, 7 and 14 recite acquiring whole preceding text information and a plurality pieces of candidate reply information for replying to the whole preceding text information; determining, for each piece of candidate reply information in the plurality pieces of candidate reply information, total difference information between the piece of candidate reply information and other candidate reply information in the plurality pieces of candidate reply information other than the piece of candidate reply information; determining consistency information between the total difference information and the whole preceding text information as first consistency information between the piece of candidate reply information and the whole preceding text information; and determining target reply information from the plurality pieces of candidate reply information, based on first consistency information corresponding to each piece of candidate reply information.
The limitations as drafted cover a mental process when a human selects between multiple replies to a letter, by looking at preprocessed replies, writing numerical representations of each word on a piece of paper, comparing the possible replies and noting the differences using pencil and paper, and then comparing the differences to a numerical representation of the letter using pencil and paper and choosing the best reply by comparing the differences to the preprocessed replies.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular claim 8 recites additional element of processor, which is a form of generic computer equipment. In the as-filed Specifications ¶ [0102] The processor may process instructions executed within the electronic device, including instructions stored in or on the memory to display graphic information of GUI on an external input/output apparatus (such as a display device coupled to the interface). In other embodiments, a plurality of processors and/or a plurality of buses may be used together with a plurality of memories if desired. Similarly, a plurality of electronic devices may be connected, and the devices provide some necessary operations (for example, as a server array, a set of blade servers, or a multi-processor system). In FIG. 7, one processor 701 is used as an example.” 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer is noted as a general computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 8 and 16 recite wherein the determining, for each piece of candidate reply information in the plurality pieces of candidate reply information, the total difference information between the piece of candidate reply information and other candidate reply information in the plurality pieces of candidate reply information other than the piece of candidate reply information, comprises: acquiring word vectors of each piece of candidate reply information; for each piece of candidate reply information, determining, based on a similarity between word vectors of the piece of candidate reply information and word vectors of each piece of the other candidate reply information, difference information between the piece of candidate reply information and each piece of the other candidate reply information; determining difference information between the piece of candidate reply information and all of the other candidate reply information as the total difference information between the piece of candidate reply information and the other candidate reply information. This amounts to a human selecting between multiple replies to a letter, by looking at preprocessed replies, writing numerical representations of each word on a piece of paper, comparing the possible replies and noting the differences using pencil and paper, and then comparing the differences to a numerical representation of the letter using pencil and paper and choosing the best reply by comparing the differences to the preprocessed replies. No additional limitations are present.
Claims 3, 9 and 17 recite wherein the determining the consistency information between the total difference information and the whole preceding text information as the first consistency information between the piece of candidate reply information and the whole preceding text information, comprises: acquiring word vectors of the whole preceding text information.; and determining consistency information between the total difference information and the word vectors of the whole preceding text information as the first consistency information between the piece of candidate reply information and the whole preceding text information. This amounts to a human selecting between multiple replies to a letter, by looking at preprocessed replies, writing numerical representations of each word on a piece of paper, comparing the possible replies and noting the differences using pencil and paper, and then comparing the differences to a numerical representation of the letter using pencil and paper and choosing the best reply by comparing the differences to the preprocessed replies. No additional limitations are present.
Claims 4, 10 and 18 recite wherein the method further comprises: determining consistency information between the total difference information and target preceding text information as second consistency information between the piece of candidate reply information and the target preceding text information, wherein the target preceding text information is information in the whole preceding text information that belongs to a same interlocutor as the piece of candidate reply information; and the determining the target reply information from the plurality pieces of candidate reply information, based on the first consistency information corresponding to each piece of candidate reply information, comprises: determining the target reply information from the plurality pieces of candidate reply information, based on the first consistency information and the second consistency information corresponding to each piece of candidate reply information. This amounts to a human selecting between multiple replies to a multi person dialog, by looking at preprocessed replies, writing numerical representations of each word on a piece of paper, comparing the possible replies and noting the differences using pencil and paper, and then comparing the differences to a numerical representation of the dialog of one person and the entire dialog separately u using pencil and paper and choosing the best reply by comparing the differences to the preprocessed replies. No additional limitations are present.
Claims 5, 11 and 19 recite wherein the total difference information is determined based on a similarity between word vectors of the piece of candidate reply information and word vectors of the other candidate reply information of the plurality pieces of candidate reply information other than the piece of candidate reply information; the determining the consistency information between the total difference information and the target preceding text information as the second consistency information between the piece of candidate reply information and the target preceding text information, comprises: acquiring word vectors of the target preceding text information; and determining consistency information between the total difference information and the word vectors of the target preceding text information as the second consistency information between the piece of candidate reply information and the target preceding text information. This amounts to a human selecting between multiple replies to a multi person dialog, by looking at preprocessed replies, writing numerical representations of each word on a piece of paper, comparing the possible replies and noting the differences using pencil and paper, and then comparing the differences to a numerical representation of the dialog of one person and the entire dialog separately u using pencil and paper and choosing the best reply by comparing the differences to the preprocessed replies. No additional limitations are present.
Claims 6, 12 and 20 recite wherein the determining the target reply information from the plurality pieces of candidate reply information, based on the first consistency information and the second consistency information corresponding to each piece of candidate reply information, comprises: for each piece of candidate reply information, determining a score of the piece of candidate reply information, on basis of the first consistency information corresponding to the piece of candidate reply information, the second consistency information corresponding to the piece of candidate reply information, and third consistency information between semantics of the piece of candidate reply information and semantics of the whole preceding text information; and determining the target reply information from the plurality pieces of candidate reply information, based on a score of each piece of candidate reply information.
This amounts to a human selecting between multiple replies to a multi person dialog, by looking at preprocessed replies, writing numerical representations of each word on a piece of paper, comparing the possible replies and noting the differences using pencil and paper, and then comparing the differences to a numerical representation of the dialog of one person and the entire dialog separately u using pencil and paper and choosing the best reply by comparing the differences to the preprocessed replies. No additional limitations are present.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 7-9 and 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann (US 20180189628 A1) in further view of Shao (US 20210200961 A1).
With respect to Claims 1, 7 and 14 Kaufmann teaches
(Claim 1) A method for determining information, the method comprising:
(Claim 7) An apparatus for determining information, the apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations, the operations comprising: ([0020] Other implementations may include one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media storing instructions executable by a processor to perform a method such as one or more of the methods described above. Yet another implementation may include a system including memory and one or more processors operable to execute instructions, stored in the memory, to perform a method such as one or more of the methods described above.)
(Claim 14) (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, storing a computer instruction thereon, wherein the computer instruction is used to cause the computer to perform operations, the operations comprising: ([0020] Other implementations may include one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media storing instructions executable by a processor to perform a method such as one or more of the methods described above. Yet another implementation may include a system including memory and one or more processors operable to execute instructions, stored in the memory, to perform a method such as one or more of the methods described above.)
acquiring whole preceding text information and a plurality pieces of candidate reply information for replying to the whole preceding text information (Kaufman ¶ [0002] In some situations it may be desirable to suggest one or more responses to a user for inclusion in a reply electronic communication that is a reply to an electronic communication [whole preceding text] transmitted to the user);
determining, for each piece of candidate reply information in the plurality pieces of candidate reply information, total difference information between the piece of candidate reply information and other candidate reply information in the plurality pieces of candidate reply information other than the piece of candidate reply information (Kaufman ¶ [0004]The embedding based on a given candidate response may be compared to embedding(s) of candidate response(s) already selected for the subset, and the given candidate response added to the subset only if the comparing indicates a difference criterion is satisfied. For example, the difference criterion may be satisfaction of a threshold that indicates a sufficient degree of semantic difference between the given candidate response and already selected candidate response(s));
Kaufmann does not explicitly disclose however Shao teaches determining consistency information between the total difference information and the whole preceding text information as first consistency information between the piece of candidate reply information and the whole preceding text information (Shao ¶ Claim 1. obtaining a historical dialogue [whole preceding text] partial matching vector and a candidate answer partial matching vector by performing partial semantic relationship matching [total difference] based on the historical dialogue word embedding and the candidate answer word embedding; obtaining a candidate answer matching probability by performing a matching probability calculation based on the historical dialogue partial matching vector and the candidate answer partial matching vector; and determining matched answer information based on the candidate answer information and the candidate answer matching probability); and
determining target reply information from the plurality pieces of candidate reply information, based on first consistency information corresponding to each piece of candidate reply information (Shao ¶ Claim 1. and determining matched answer information based on the candidate answer information and the candidate answer matching probability).
With respect to Claims 2, 8 and 16 Kaufmann teaches wherein the determining, for each piece of candidate reply information in the plurality pieces of candidate reply information, the total difference information between the piece of candidate reply information and other candidate reply information in the plurality pieces of candidate reply information other than the piece of candidate reply information, comprises: acquiring word vectors of each piece of candidate reply information (Kaufman ¶ [0004]The embedding based on a given candidate response may be compared to embedding(s) of candidate response(s) already selected for the subset, and the given candidate response added to the subset only if the comparing indicates a difference criterion is satisfied. For example, the difference criterion may be satisfaction of a threshold that indicates a sufficient degree of semantic difference between the given candidate response and already selected candidate response(s));
for each piece of candidate reply information, determining, based on a similarity between word vectors of the piece of candidate reply information and word vectors of each piece of the other candidate reply information, difference information between the piece of candidate reply information and each piece of the other candidate reply information (Kaufman ¶ [0004]The embedding based on a given candidate response may be compared to embedding(s) of candidate response(s) already selected for the subset, and the given candidate response added to the subset only if the comparing indicates a difference criterion is satisfied. For example, the difference criterion may be satisfaction of a threshold that indicates a sufficient degree of semantic difference between the given candidate response and already selected candidate response(s); and
determining difference information between the piece of candidate reply information and all of the other candidate reply information as the total difference information between the piece of candidate reply information and the other candidate reply information Kaufman ¶ [0004]The embedding based on a given candidate response may be compared to embedding(s) of candidate response(s) already selected for the subset, and the given candidate response added to the subset only if the comparing indicates a difference criterion is satisfied. For example, the difference criterion may be satisfaction of a threshold that indicates a sufficient degree of semantic difference between the given candidate response and already selected candidate response(s)).
With respect to Claims 3, 9 and 17 Shao further teaches wherein the determining the consistency information between the total difference information and the whole preceding text information as the first consistency information between the piece of candidate reply information and the whole preceding text information, comprises: acquiring word vectors of the whole preceding text information (Shao ¶ Claim 1. obtaining a historical dialogue [whole preceding text] partial matching vector and a candidate answer partial matching vector by performing partial semantic relationship matching based on the historical dialogue word embedding and the candidate answer word embedding [total difference]; obtaining a candidate answer matching probability by performing a matching probability calculation based on the historical dialogue partial matching vector and the candidate answer partial matching vector; and determining matched answer information based on the candidate answer information and the candidate answer matching probability).; and
determining consistency information between the total difference information and the word vectors of the whole preceding text information as the first consistency information between the piece of candidate reply information and the whole preceding text information (Shao ¶ Claim 1. obtaining a historical dialogue [whole preceding text] partial matching vector and a candidate answer [total difference] partial matching vector by performing partial semantic relationship matching based on the historical dialogue word embedding and the candidate answer word embedding; obtaining a candidate answer matching probability by performing a matching probability calculation based on the historical dialogue partial matching vector and the candidate answer partial matching vector; and determining matched answer information based on the candidate answer information and the candidate answer matching probability).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 -6, 10-12 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable, pending overcoming 101 rejections set forth in this office action, if written in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4, 10 and 18 recite determining consistency information between the total difference information and target preceding text information as second consistency information between the piece of candidate reply information and the target preceding text information, wherein the target preceding text information is information in the whole preceding text information that belongs to a same interlocutor as the piece of candidate reply information; and the determining the target reply information from the plurality pieces of candidate reply information, based on the first consistency information corresponding to each piece of candidate reply information, comprises: determining the target reply information from the plurality pieces of candidate reply information, based on the first consistency information and the second consistency information corresponding to each piece of candidate reply information.
The closest teaching scome from Kauffman who teaches “(Kaufman ¶ [0004]The embedding based on a given candidate response may be compared to embedding(s) of candidate response(s) already selected for the subset, and the given candidate response added to the subset only if the comparing indicates a difference criterion is satisfied. For example, the difference criterion may be satisfaction of a threshold that indicates a sufficient degree of semantic difference between the given candidate response and already selected candidate response(s)”, and Shao who teaches “(Shao ¶ Claim 1. obtaining a historical dialogue [whole preceding text] partial matching vector and a candidate answer partial matching vector by performing partial semantic relationship matching [total difference] based on the historical dialogue word embedding and the candidate answer word embedding; obtaining a candidate answer matching probability by performing a matching probability calculation based on the historical dialogue partial matching vector and the candidate answer partial matching vector; and determining matched answer information based on the candidate answer information and the candidate answer matching probability).” However, none of the prior art of record including Kaufmann and Shao teach the limitation as stated in the applicant’s claim specifically as noted/underlined earlier, including all supporting limitations thereof was not found in the relevant prior art of records.
Therefore claims 4, 10 and 18 would be allowable. Claims 5-6, 11-12 and 19-20 would be allowable based on the dependencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATHAR N PASHA whose telephone number is (408)918-7675. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday Alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached on (571)272-5551. 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.
/ATHAR N PASHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657