DETAILED ACTION
The action is responsive to the Application filed on 11/04/2024. Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 24, 27, 28, 30, 33 and 34 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 33 and 34 are independent claims.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR CONFIRMING AN ASSOCIATION RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A WORD AND INFORMATION.
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.
Claims 3 and 10 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. The claims recite “the related word” which lacks antecedent basis therefore making the claims indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner assumed claims 3 and 10 to depend from claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 24, 27, 28, 30, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Byron et al. (US 20160378736 A1).
As to claim 1, Byron discloses an information processing method, comprising:
displaying information to be confirmed of a word to be edited ("In an embodiment, user program 112 may create a task that indicates to the user if an unknown word is related (synonym, antonym, etc.) to another word… In an embodiment, user program 112 may generate and suggest synonyms, antonym, acronyms, homonyms, metonyms to words found in information repository 124 of a specific ontology collection and the user may confirm or decline the generated words," Byron paragraph 0023, asking and indicating to the user (i.e., displaying) if generated words (i.e., related information) are related to a specific word); and
establishing an association relationship between the word to be edited and the information to be confirmed based on an operation for the information to be confirmed ("In an embodiment, user program 112 may create a task that indicates to the user if an unknown word is related (synonym, antonym, etc.) to another word… In an embodiment, user program 112 may generate and suggest synonyms, antonym, acronyms, homonyms, metonyms to words found in information repository 124 of a specific ontology collection and the user may confirm or decline the generated words" Byron paragraph 0023; "In an embodiment, the user may indicate to user program 112 specific text regarding a word or an indication of matching or association between words," Byron paragraph 0024; "User program 112 provides information to information repository 124 (step 220). In other words, user program 112 updates information repository 124 with the information received for the task. In an embodiment, user program 112 updates information repository 124," Byron paragraph 0025, user can confirm the generated words and the relationship is updated in the information repository),
where the information to be confirmed is configured to provide explanatory information of the word to be edited ("For example, the user manages the domain specific ontology collection related to “Pickup Trucks” and user program 112 determines that in the ontology collection there is Pickup Truck A that does not have a year or years of production or a manufacturer. User program 112 creates a task for the user to determine the year or years of production and manufacturer of Pickup Truck A," Byron paragraph 0022; “In an embodiment, user program 112 may generate and suggest synonyms, antonym, acronyms, homonyms, metonyms to words found in information repository 124 of a specific ontology collection and the user may confirm or decline the generated words" Byron paragraph 0023; "In an embodiment, the user may indicate to user program 112 specific text regarding a word or an indication of matching or association between words," Byron paragraph 0024).
As to claim 2, Byron further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the word to be edited comprises a related word pushed to a first user ("In an embodiment, upon verification of a user, user program 112 may determine, from domain adaptation tool 122, the areas of expertise of the user. In other words, a user may have specific areas of expertise that allow him to manage domain specific ontology collections associated with the areas of expertise of the user," Byron paragraph 0021; "User program 112 determines a task for the user (step 210). In other words, user program 112 determines a task for the user based on the domain specific ontology collection that the user is allowed to manage. In an embodiment, user program 112 determines any information in a domain specific ontology collection that needs to be updated, verified, summarized, expanded, etc., and user program 112 creates a task for the user to provide the required information," Byron paragraph 0022, pushing tasks to the user (such as confirming related information of a word) based on the identity and expertise of the user).
As to claim 4, Byron further discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the method further comprises at least one of:
displaying a word to be created by the first user, and displaying a creation control in a corresponding manner to the word to be created; and in response to a trigger operation for the creation control, displaying a word editing interface ("The tasks assigned to the user by domain adaptation tool 122 may include organizing, updating, changing, modifying, adding, deleting, or the like, any domain specific ontology collection found in information repository 124 with information found while the user is doing the tasks," Byron paragraph 0017; "In an embodiment, user program 112 may create a task that indicates to the user to populate a knowledge graph in a domain specific ontology collection with new entities and relationships from a web site or electronic document… In an embodiment, user program 112 may generate and suggest synonyms, antonym, acronyms, homonyms, metonyms to words found in information repository 124 of a specific ontology collection and the user may confirm or decline the generated words," Byron paragraph 0023, the user can update add or delete information including words);
or
in response to the confirmation operation, displaying a word editing entry control of the related word; and in response to a trigger operation for the word editing entry control, displaying a word editing interface of the related word;
or
in response to the confirmation operation, displaying editing prompt information of the related word, and displaying a word editing entry control corresponding to the editing prompt information; and in response to a trigger operation for the word editing entry control, displaying a word editing interface of the related word.
As to claim 7, Byron further discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the information to be confirmed comprises a related document identifier (For example, User Paul has reviewed websites related to 'European Automobiles' and has read a document entitled 'German Muscle Cars of the 1980s'. User program 112 determines that the reviewed websites are related to German Automobiles and that User Paul manages domain specific ontology collection related to 'German Automobiles,' Byron paragraph 0022, document title as an identifier); and
the establishing an association relationship between the word to be edited and the information to be confirmed based on an operation for the information to be confirmed comprises:
displaying an association control corresponding to the related document identifier; and establishing an association relationship between the related word and a related document indicated by the related document identifier based on a trigger operation for the association control ("In an alternative embodiment, user program 112 determines the previous actions of the user, such as internet history or previous electronic documents that the user has reviewed or analyzed, and applies natural language processing to the previous actions to determine if any of the previous actions of the user are related to a domain specific ontology collection the user manages. For example, User Paul has reviewed websites related to 'European Automobiles' and has read a document entitled 'German Muscle Cars of the 1980s'. User program 112 determines that the reviewed websites are related to German Automobiles and that User Paul manages domain specific ontology collection related to 'German Automobiles.' User program 112 determines there is a word in the website related to 'European Automobiles' that is not in the ontology collection 'German Automobiles' and indicates to the user if the word should be included in the ontology collection and where the word should be included in the ontology collection (i.e., what other words and phrases the word is associated with). Additionally, user program 112 determines that the ontology collection 'German Automobiles' does not have a section related to muscle cars of the 1980's in Germany and user program 112 indicates to the user if the information from the document entitled 'German Muscle Cars of the 1980s' should be included in the ontology collection," Byron paragraph 0022; "In an embodiment, user program 112 may create a task that indicates websites or electronic documents for the user to navigate to and use the websites or electronic documents to provide information for a domain specific ontology collection. In an embodiment, user program 112 may create a task that indicates to the user to populate a knowledge graph in a domain specific ontology collection with new entities and relationships from a web site or electronic document," Byron paragraph 0023; "In an embodiment, a user indicates to user program 112 information found in the websites or electronic documents that will complete, at least part, of the task assigned to the user. In an embodiment, the user may indicate to user program 112 specific text regarding a word or an indication of matching or association between words. In an alternative embodiment, the indication may include notifying user program 112 of a specific area or section of the website or electronic document that completes the task. For example, the user may type text that indicates to user program 112 that Pickup Truck A was produced between 1983 and 1985. Additionally, the user may input text that indicates to user program 112 that Pickup A was manufactured by Company A. In another example, the user may highlight or differentiate an area of an electronic document that indicates to user program 112 that the most produced German Muscle Cars of the 1980s were: 1. Muscle Car A; 2. Muscle Car B; 3. Muscle Car C; 4. Muscle Car D; and 5. Muscle Car E," Byron paragraph 0024, determining a related document and then querying the user to confirm if the document is related and what information from the related document should be included).
As to claim 9, Byron further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the establishing an association relationship between the word to be edited and the information to be confirmed based on an operation for the information to be confirmed comprises:
in response to detecting the trigger operation for the association control, sending an association relationship confirmation request ("User program 112 provides information to information repository 124 (step 220). In other words, user program 112 updates information repository 124 with the information received for the task. In an embodiment, user program 112 updates information repository 124," Byron paragraph 0025, user can confirm the generated words and the relationship is updated in the information repository); and
in response to receiving an association success notification returned based on the association relationship confirmation request, displaying association success prompt information ("In an embodiment, user program 112 may determine, after updating information repository 124, that information repository 124 needs additional information for the domain specific ontology collection and may create additional tasks for the user," Byron paragraph 0025, notifying the user that the association was successful or not by requesting additional information).
As to claim 10, Byron further discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein at least one of:
the information to be confirmed comprises a related user identifier; and the establishing an association relationship between the word to be edited and the information to be confirmed based on an operation for the information to be confirmed comprises: displaying an association control corresponding to the related user identifier; and
establishing an association relationship between the related word and the related user identifier based on a trigger operation for the related user identifier,
or
the information to be confirmed comprises a candidate definition of the related word; and the establishing an association relationship between the word to be edited and the information to be confirmed based on an operation for the information to be confirmed comprises: displaying a confirmation control corresponding to the candidate definition (“In an embodiment, user program 112 may generate and suggest synonyms, antonym, acronyms, homonyms, metonyms to words found in information repository 124 of a specific ontology collection and the user may confirm or decline the generated words," Byron paragraph 0023); and
establishing an association relationship between the related word and the candidate definition based on a trigger operation for the confirmation control (“In an embodiment, user program 112 may generate and suggest synonyms, antonym, acronyms, homonyms, metonyms to words found in information repository 124 of a specific ontology collection and the user may confirm or decline the generated words," Byron paragraph 0023; "User program 112 provides information to information repository 124 (step 220). In other words, user program 112 updates information repository 124 with the information received for the task. In an embodiment, user program 112 updates information repository 124," Byron paragraph 0025).
As to claim 12, Byron further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying information to be confirmed of a word to be edited comprises:
displaying, in a word editing interface of the word to be edited, the information to be confirmed of the word to be edited ("In another embodiment, user program 112 may be an add-on program to a word editor or any other content editor that supports add-on programs," Byron paragraph 0012; "In one embodiment, the steps of the workflow are performed by user program 112," Byron paragraph 0020; "In an embodiment, user program 112 may create a task that indicates to the user if an unknown word is related (synonym, antonym, etc.) to another word," Byron paragraph 0023).
As to claim 13, Byron further discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein the method further comprises at least one of:
in response to a trigger operation of a user having an editing permission for a word to be edited for a predefined word editing entry control, displaying the word editing interface ("In other words, a user may have identified domain specific ontology collections that the user is allowed to manage. For example, an administrator of information repository 124 may be allowed to manage a domain specific ontology collection related to 'German Automobiles,'" Byron paragraph 0021, experts need permission to manage (i.e., edit) the words in the ontology collection); or
displaying prompt information corresponding to the information to be confirmed, wherein the prompt information is used to indicate at least one of the following of the information to be confirmed: a type, a source, and an operation prompt;
or
displaying feedback information in a word editing interface, wherein the feedback information includes improvement direction information for content to be edited of the word to be edited.
As to claim 15, Byron further discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein the prompt information is displayed in a form of annotated content ("In an embodiment, user program 112 may create a task that indicates to the user if an unknown word is related (synonym, antonym, etc.) to another word… In an embodiment, user program 112 may generate and suggest synonyms, antonym, acronyms, homonyms, metonyms to words found in information repository 124 of a specific ontology collection and the user may confirm or decline the generated words" Byron paragraph 0023; "In an embodiment, the user may indicate to user program 112 specific text regarding a word or an indication of matching or association between words," Byron paragraph 0024).
As to claim 17, Byron further discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein at least one of:
the operation for the information to be confirmed comprises at least one of the following: a deletion operation, a confirmation operation, and an editing operation ("The tasks assigned to the user by domain adaptation tool 122 may include organizing, updating, changing, modifying, adding, deleting, or the like, any domain specific ontology collection found in information repository 124 with information found while the user is doing the tasks," Byron paragraph 0017; "In an embodiment, user program 112 may create a task that indicates to the user if an unknown word is related (synonym, antonym, etc.) to another word… In an embodiment, user program 112 may generate and suggest synonyms, antonym, acronyms, homonyms, metonyms to words found in information repository 124 of a specific ontology collection and the user may confirm or decline the generated words" Byron paragraph 0023);
or
the displayed information to be confirmed comprises at least one of the following types: a word definition, a related document, a related group, a related user identifier, a related link, and a related word, where the related link is used to indicate a carrier of the explanatory information ("In an embodiment, user program 112 may create a task that indicates to the user if an unknown word is related (synonym, antonym, etc.) to another word… In an embodiment, user program 112 may generate and suggest synonyms, antonym, acronyms, homonyms, metonyms to words found in information repository 124 of a specific ontology collection and the user may confirm or decline the generated words" Byron paragraph 0023; "In an embodiment, user program 112 may create a task that indicates websites or electronic documents for the user to navigate to and use the websites or electronic documents to provide information for a domain specific ontology collection. In an embodiment, user program 112 may create a task that indicates to the user to populate a knowledge graph in a domain specific ontology collection with new entities and relationships from a web site or electronic document," Byron paragraph 0023; "In an embodiment, a user indicates to user program 112 information found in the websites or electronic documents that will complete, at least part, of the task assigned to the user. In an embodiment, the user may indicate to user program 112 specific text regarding a word or an indication of matching or association between words. In an alternative embodiment, the indication may include notifying user program 112 of a specific area or section of the website or electronic document that completes the task. For example, the user may type text that indicates to user program 112 that Pickup Truck A was produced between 1983 and 1985. Additionally, the user may input text that indicates to user program 112 that Pickup A was manufactured by Company A. In another example, the user may highlight or differentiate an area of an electronic document that indicates to user program 112 that the most produced German Muscle Cars of the 1980s were: 1. Muscle Car A; 2. Muscle Car B; 3. Muscle Car C; 4. Muscle Car D; and 5. Muscle Car E," Byron paragraph 0024, associating word definitions, related words, related links or related documents with the word).
As to claim 19, Byron further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
mining, from a database, related information of the word to be edited and an expected contribution user ("user program 112 determines the previous actions of the user, such as internet history or previous electronic documents that the user has reviewed or analyzed, and applies natural language processing to the previous actions to determine if any of the previous actions of the user are related to a domain specific ontology collection the user manages. For example, User Paul has reviewed websites related to 'European Automobiles' and has read a document entitled 'German Muscle Cars of the 1980s'. User program 112 determines that the reviewed websites are related to German Automobiles and that User Paul manages domain specific ontology collection related to 'German Automobiles,'" Byron paragraph 0022, mining related information and actions of the user (i.e., expected contribution) to determine suitability for words and tasks).
As to claim 20, Byron further discloses the method according to claim 19, wherein at least one of:
the related word of the first user is obtained through the following steps: in response to the first user being an expected contribution user of the word to be edited, using the related information of the word to be edited as the information to be confirmed, and using the word to be edited as the related word of the first user, and pushing the related word and the related information to the first user ("User program 112 determines tasks to be assigned to a user based on the domain specific ontology collections associated with the user and the previous actions of the user (i.e., website browsing history, electronic document history, etc.). User program 112 receives information from the user that completes, at least in part, the tasks assigned to the user and user program 112 updates information repository 124 with the received information," Byron paragraph 0012; "In an embodiment, domain adaptation tool 122 may assign tasks to a user related to domain specific ontology collections found in information repository 124. In an alternative embodiment, domain adaptation tool 122 may monitor the actions of a user and assign tasks to the user based on the actions. In an embodiment, the actions of the user may be a user viewing a website, an electronic document, a content editor within a domain specific workflow, etc.," Byron paragraph 0017; "In an embodiment, upon verification of a user, user program 112 may determine, from domain adaptation tool 122, the areas of expertise of the user. In other words, a user may have specific areas of expertise that allow him to manage domain specific ontology collections associated with the areas of expertise of the user. For example, a user may have an area of expertise in automobiles and therefore the user is allowed to manage a domain specific ontology collection related to 'Pickup Trucks.' In an alternative embodiment, upon verification of a user, user program 112 may determine, from domain adaptation tool 122, the domain specific ontology collections that are associated with the user. In other words, a user may have identified domain specific ontology collections that the user is allowed to manage. For example, an administrator of information repository 124 may be allowed to manage a domain specific ontology collection related to 'German Automobiles,'" Byron paragraph 0021, determining which words are appropriate to show to which users by determining their expertise to relate the word to the user);
or
the word editing page is obtained through the following steps: in response to receiving a get request for the word editing interface, sending, to a requesting user of the word editing interface, related information of the word to be edited as information to be confirmed;
or
the mining, from a database, related information of the word to be edited and an expected contribution user comprises: searching, in a document set, for a sentence including the word to be edited as a first sentence set; selecting, from the first sentence set, a first sentence that meets a preset definition sentence condition as a second sentence set; and extracting a subject word in a second sentence in the second sentence set, and if the extracted subject word matches the word to be edited, determining a word definition of the word to be edited based on the second sentence;
or
wherein the mining, from a database, related information of the word to be edited and an expected contribution user comprises: searching, in a document set, for a document including at least one of the word to be edited in a document title or document content as a first document set; determining a second document from the first document set based on the document title, to obtain a second document set, wherein the second document set includes a document that explains the word to be edited; and selecting a related document of the word to be edited from the second document set based on a correlation with at least one of the word to be edited or a document quality score;
or
the mining, from a database, related information of the word to be edited and an expected contribution user comprises: determining, based on user feature information and a correlation between a user and the word to be edited, an expected contribution value between the user and the word to be edited, wherein the expected contribution value is used to represent a probability of the user editing the word to be edited;
or
the mining, from a database, related information of the word to be edited and an expected contribution user comprises: determining a candidate related user identifier of the word to be edited based on behavior data of a user for the word to be edited; and determining a related user identifier of the word to be edited from candidate user identifiers of the word to be edited based on a relationship between the candidate related user identifier and related information associated with the word to be edited;
or
the mining, from a database, related information of the word to be edited and an expected contribution user comprises: determining a correlation between the word to be edited and a candidate related word based on at least one of the following: co-occurrence information between words, whether words are associated with a same piece of related information, and whether a word definition includes another word; and determining a related word of the word to be edited based on the correlation.
As to claim 24, Byron further discloses the method according to claim 20, wherein at least one of:
the correlation between the second document and the word to be edited is determined through a first step, wherein the first step comprises:
determining the correlation between the second document and the word to be edited based on at least one of the following: presentation information and search click information of the word to be edited in the second document, wherein the presentation information of the word to be edited in the second document is determined based on at least one of the following: a presentation position, a presentation style, and a quantity of occurrences, and the search click information is used to indicate: when the second document is included in a search result obtained by using the word to be edited as a search word, a click situation of the user on the second document;
or
the document quality score is determined through a second step, wherein the second step comprises: determining a document quality score of the second document based on reading data and evaluation data of the document in a preset time period ("In an alternative embodiment, user program 112 determines the previous actions of the user, such as internet history or previous electronic documents that the user has reviewed or analyzed, and applies natural language processing to the previous actions to determine if any of the previous actions of the user are related to a domain specific ontology collection the user manages. For example, User Paul has reviewed websites related to 'European Automobiles' and has read a document entitled 'German Muscle Cars of the 1980s'. User program 112 determines that the reviewed websites are related to German Automobiles and that User Paul manages domain specific ontology collection related to 'German Automobiles.' User program 112 determines there is a word in the website related to 'European Automobiles' that is not in the ontology collection 'German Automobiles' and indicates to the user if the word should be included in the ontology collection and where the word should be included in the ontology collection (i.e., what other words and phrases the word is associated with). Additionally, user program 112 determines that the ontology collection 'German Automobiles' does not have a section related to muscle cars of the 1980's in Germany and user program 112 indicates to the user if the information from the document entitled 'German Muscle Cars of the 1980s' should be included in the ontology collection," Byron paragraph 0022).
As to claim 27, Byron further discloses the method according to claim 20, wherein the correlation is determined based on at least one of the following:
a similarity between a word associated with the user and the word to be edited, and a quantity of times that the word to be edited is included in an interaction record of the user ("user program 112 determines the previous actions of the user, such as internet history or previous electronic documents that the user has reviewed or analyzed, and applies natural language processing to the previous actions to determine if any of the previous actions of the user are related to a domain specific ontology collection the user manages. For example, User Paul has reviewed websites related to 'European Automobiles' and has read a document entitled 'German Muscle Cars of the 1980s'. User program 112 determines that the reviewed websites are related to German Automobiles and that User Paul manages domain specific ontology collection related to 'German Automobiles.' User program 112 determines there is a word in the website related to 'European Automobiles' that is not in the ontology collection 'German Automobiles' and indicates to the user if the word should be included in the ontology collection and where the word should be included in the ontology collection (i.e., what other words and phrases the word is associated with)" Byron paragraph 0022).
As to claim 28, Byron further discloses the method according to claim 20, wherein the user feature information comprises at least one of the following:
a quantity of times that the user at least one of creates or updates a word;
user reliability information, wherein the user reliability information is generated based on comment information of the user about at least one of the word or the document; and
user identity information ("user program 112 determines the previous actions of the user, such as internet history or previous electronic documents that the user has reviewed or analyzed, and applies natural language processing to the previous actions to determine if any of the previous actions of the user are related to a domain specific ontology collection the user manages. For example, User Paul has reviewed websites related to 'European Automobiles' and has read a document entitled 'German Muscle Cars of the 1980s'. User program 112 determines that the reviewed websites are related to German Automobiles and that User Paul manages domain specific ontology collection related to 'German Automobiles.' User program 112 determines there is a word in the website related to 'European Automobiles' that is not in the ontology collection 'German Automobiles' and indicates to the user if the word should be included in the ontology collection and where the word should be included in the ontology collection (i.e., what other words and phrases the word is associated with)" Byron paragraph 0022).
As to claim 30, Byron further discloses the method according to claim [[29]]20, wherein the relationship between the candidate related user identifier and the related information associated with the word to be edited comprises at least one of the following:
whether the user is an owner of a related document of the word to be edited;
whether the user is an administrator of a related group of the word to be edited;
whether the user is a contributor to content of the word to be edited ("user program 112 determines the previous actions of the user, such as internet history or previous electronic documents that the user has reviewed or analyzed, and applies natural language processing to the previous actions to determine if any of the previous actions of the user are related to a domain specific ontology collection the user manages. For example, User Paul has reviewed websites related to 'European Automobiles' and has read a document entitled 'German Muscle Cars of the 1980s'. User program 112 determines that the reviewed websites are related to German Automobiles and that User Paul manages domain specific ontology collection related to 'German Automobiles,'" Byron paragraph 0022, mining related information and actions of the user to determine suitability for words and tasks); and
whether a schedule topic of the user in a preset time period includes the word to be edited.
As to claim 33, Byron further discloses an electronic device, comprising:
one or more processors (“Program instructions and data used to practice embodiments of the present invention may be stored in persistent storage 305 and in memory 302 for execution by one or more of the respective processors 301 via cache 303,” Byron paragraph 0028); and
a storage apparatus, configured to store one or more programs (“Program instructions and data used to practice embodiments of the present invention may be stored in persistent storage 305 and in memory 302 for execution by one or more of the respective processors 301 via cache 303,” Byron paragraph 0028),
wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement an information processing method (“Program instructions and data used to practice embodiments of the present invention may be stored in persistent storage 305 and in memory 302 for execution by one or more of the respective processors 301 via cache 303,” Byron paragraph 0028), comprising:
displaying information to be confirmed of a word to be edited ("In an embodiment, user program 112 may create a task that indicates to the user if an unknown word is related (synonym, antonym, etc.) to another word… In an embodiment, user program 112 may generate and suggest synonyms, antonym, acronyms, homonyms, metonyms to words found in information repository 124 of a specific ontology collection and the user may confirm or decline the generated words," Byron paragraph 0023, asking and indicating to the user (i.e., displaying) if generated words (i.e., related information) are related to a specific word); and
establishing an association relationship between the word to be edited and the information to be confirmed based on an operation for the information to be confirmed ("In an embodiment, user program 112 may create a task that indicates to the user if an unknown word is related (synonym, antonym, etc.) to another word… In an embodiment, user program 112 may generate and suggest synonyms, antonym, acronyms, homonyms, metonyms to words found in information repository 124 of a specific ontology collection and the user may confirm or decline the generated words" Byron paragraph 0023; "In an embodiment, the user may indicate to user program 112 specific text regarding a word or an indication of matching or association between words," Byron paragraph 0024; "User program 112 provides information to information repository 124 (step 220). In other words, user program 112 updates information repository 124 with the information received for the task. In an embodiment, user program 112 updates information repository 124," Byron paragraph 0025, user can confirm the generated words and the relationship is updated in the information repository),
where the information to be confirmed is configured to provide explanatory information of the word to be edited ("For example, the user manages the domain specific ontology collection related to “Pickup Trucks” and user program 112 determines that in the ontology collection there is Pickup Truck A that does not have a year or years of production or a manufacturer. User program 112 creates a task for the user to determine the year or years of production and manufacturer of Pickup Truck A," Byron paragraph 0022; “In an embodiment, user program 112 may generate and suggest synonyms, antonym, acronyms, homonyms, metonyms to words found in information repository 124 of a specific ontology collection and the user may confirm or decline the generated words" Byron paragraph 0023; "In an embodiment, the user may indicate to user program 112 specific text regarding a word or an indication of matching or association between words," Byron paragraph 0024).
As to claim 34, Byron further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein when the program is executed by a processor, an information processing method is implemented (“Program instructions and data used to practice embodiments of the present invention may be stored in persistent storage 305 and in memory 302 for execution by one or more of the respective processors 301 via cache 303,” Byron paragraph 0028), comprising:
displaying information to be confirmed of a word to be edited ("In an embodiment, user program 112 may create a task that indicates to the user if an unknown word is related (synonym, antonym, etc.) to another word… In an embodiment, user program 112 may generate and suggest synonyms, antonym, acronyms, homonyms, metonyms to words found in information repository 124 of a specific ontology collection and the user may confirm or decline the generated words," Byron paragraph 0023, asking and indicating to the user (i.e., displaying) if generated words (i.e., related information) are related to a specific word); and
establishing an association relationship between the word to be edited and the information to be confirmed based on an operation for the information to be confirmed ("In an embodiment, user program 112 may create a task that indicates to the user if an unknown word is related (synonym, antonym, etc.) to another word… In an embodiment, user program 112 may generate and suggest synonyms, antonym, acronyms, homonyms, metonyms to words found in information repository 124 of a specific ontology collection and the user may confirm or decline the generated words" Byron paragraph 0023; "In an embodiment, the user may indicate to user program 112 specific text regarding a word or an indication of matching or association between words," Byron paragraph 0024; "User program 112 provides information to information repository 124 (step 220). In other words, user program 112 updates information repository 124 with the information received for the task. In an embodiment, user program 112 updates information repository 124," Byron paragraph 0025, user can confirm the generated words and the relationship is updated in the information repository),
where the information to be confirmed is configured to provide explanatory information of the word to be edited ("For example, the user manages the domain specific ontology collection related to “Pickup Trucks” and user program 112 determines that in the ontology collection there is Pickup Truck A that does not have a year or years of production or a manufacturer. User program 112 creates a task for the user to determine the year or years of production and manufacturer of Pickup Truck A," Byron paragraph 0022; “In an embodiment, user program 112 may generate and suggest synonyms, antonym, acronyms, homonyms, metonyms to words found in information repository 124 of a specific ontology collection and the user may confirm or decline the generated words" Byron paragraph 0023; "In an embodiment, the user may indicate to user program 112 specific text regarding a word or an indication of matching or association between words," Byron paragraph 0024).
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 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byron et al. (US 20160378736 A1) in view of Travis et al. (US 20220318510 A1, hereinafter Travis).
As to claim 3, Byron further discloses the method according to claim 2, however Byron does not appear to explicitly disclose a limitation wherein the method further comprises:
in response to a predefined expansion operation for the related word, displaying a definition of the related word, so that the first user determines whether to perform the confirmation operation based on the definition.
Travis teaches a limitation wherein the method further comprises:
in response to a predefined expansion operation for the word, displaying a definition of the word, so that the first user determines whether to perform the confirmation operation based on the definition (“As shown in embodiment 610, the UI modification module 211 may generate an alert 601 and place the alert 601 onto the UI 219. As shown, when a user accesses the software product, the alert 601 may be interacted with, for example by clicking the alert on the UI 219, to display a notification message 603. In this example, the notification message 603 describes a definition of the term ‘policy’, since the ‘policy’ definition in the multicloud manager differs from one of the core products that a user may access more frequently and/or the user may have recorded a longer length of time accessing. As shown in FIG. 6B, a user receiving the alert 601 may review the definition of the term being presented in the notification message 603 and may confirm the definition and/or revise the definition; for example, by clicking the revise button 605 and inputting a new revised definition for the term ‘policy’,” Travis paragraph 0099).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Byron to display a definition of Byron’s content in a task prompt such as a related word as taught by Travis. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that the user could have more context and data for deciding on whether to confirm or deny thus resulting in greater ease of use for the user.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byron et al. (US 20160378736 A1) in view of Boucousis (US 20050278365 A1).
As to claim 8, Byron further discloses the method according to claim 7, however Byron does not appear to explicitly disclose a limitation wherein the method further comprises:
in response to detecting the trigger operation for the association control, determining whether a publication scope of the related document indicated by the related document identifier is a preset scope;
if the publication scope is not the preset scope, displaying permission opening prompt information;
in response to a trigger operation for the permission opening prompt information, displaying a permission opening interface, wherein the permission opening interface comprises a permission change control; and
updating the publication scope of the related document based on an operation for the permission change control.
Boucousis teaches a limitation wherein the method further comprises:
in response to detecting the trigger operation for the association control, determining whether a publication scope of the related document indicated by the related document identifier is a preset scope; if the publication scope is not the preset scope, displaying permission opening prompt information (“The user's request is sent to the server, where Record Group and Security Level of the Object record are compared with the user's Security Profile(s) and if a) the edit rights of the record are within those granted by the Security Profile, and b) the user has access to the associated Service,” Boucousis paragraph 0173; “The user's request is sent to the server, where the Record Group and Security Level of the First Object record Group are compared with the user's Security Profile(s) and if a) the edit rights of the record are within those granted by the Security Profile, and b) the user has access to the associated Service, the procedure displays a form 92 to add a Relationship,” Boucousis paragraph 0181; “As each Object has it's own security, access to a given Object does not provide access to other Objects it is related to. A user must have explicit access to every record they wish to access. For example, a user may have access to a Sales Opportunity record showing details of product to be sold, value, stage of the sale, anticipated close date etc, however they may not have access to a copy of the Sales Proposal (a document) or to the Objects records of the People and Organizations related to it as they may have a different Security Levels,” Boucousis paragraph 0233; Boucousis Figure 3 26 “Level 2 – Restricted”);
in response to a trigger operation for the permission opening prompt information, displaying a permission opening interface, wherein the permission opening interface comprises a permission change control; and updating the publication scope of the related document based on an operation for the permission change control (“The user's request is sent to the server, where Record Group and Security Level of the Object record are compared with the user's Security Profile(s) and if a) the edit rights of the record are within those granted by the Security Profile, and b) the user has access to the associated Service,” Boucousis paragraph 0173; “The user's request is sent to the server, where the Record Group and Security Level of the First Object record Group are compared with the user's Security Profile(s) and if a) the edit rights of the record are within those granted by the Security Profile, and b) the user has access to the associated Service, the procedure displays a form 92 to add a Relationship,” Boucousis paragraph 0181; “As each Object has it's own security, access to a given Object does not provide access to other Objects it is related to. A user must have explicit access to every record they wish to access. For example, a user may have access to a Sales Opportunity record showing details of product to be sold, value, stage of the sale, anticipated close date etc, however they may not have access to a copy of the Sales Proposal (a document) or to the Objects records of the People and Organizations related to it as they may have a different Security Levels,” Boucousis paragraph 0233; Boucousis Figure 3 26 “Level 2 – Restricted”).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Byron to use security levels for related documents as taught by Boucousis. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that publication and access to sensitive documents could be controlled resulting in greater security and greater utility for the finished product (Boucousis paragraph 0044).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20150309991 A1 to Hayashibe et al. discloses an input support device, input support method and input support program where an editor can confirm an association of an input candidate word with another word;
US 20210209199 A1 to Slavin discloses a system and method for implementing an open digital rights language (ODRL) visualizer where additional details about a term in an ontology can be displayed and where the additional details can be validated and confirmed by the user; and
US 20100094617 A1 to Okura et al. discloses a translation supporting program, apparatus and method where an original word and a generated translated word are displayed to a user in order to the confirm the association between the original word and the translated word.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL SAMWEL whose telephone number is (313) 446-6549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:00-6:00 EST.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/DANIEL SAMWEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights