DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 10 December 2024. Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number 202210717359.5 dated 23 June 2022. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 10 December 2024 has been considered and placed in the application file.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification.
The following terms in the claims have been given the following interpretations in light of the specification:
Event: paragraph [0054], “It should be explained that the above-mentioned event to be processed specifically refers to a piece of voice data or a piece of text data. In practical applications, the event to be processed usually inevitably contains interference words that affect semantic understanding, such as “hello”, “Excuse me”, etc.”
Thus, an event is any piece of voice or text data. This definition is used for purposes of searching for prior art, but cannot be incorporated into the claims.
Word dictionary: paragraph [0057], “Exemplarily, a word dictionary A is displayed as a word tag a in the preset word dictionary, a can be “location”, “time” and “intention”, etc., and the word dictionary A is a word set as the word tag a in the preset time template, which includes geographical location words such as “Shenzhen” and “Zhuhai”.”
Thus, a word dictionary is any set of words that correspond to a common type. This definition is used for purposes of searching for prior art, but cannot be incorporated into the claims.
Should applicant wish different definitions, Applicant should point to the portions of the specification that clearly show a different definition.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: "an event acquisition module," "a semantic enhancement module," "a matching and calculating module," and "a target selection module" in claim 16.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 13, should be “vector; and”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. All of the claims are method claims (1-15), apparatus/machine claims (16-19, 21) or manufacture claim under (Step 1), but under Step 2A all of these claims recite abstract ideas and specifically mental processes. These mental processes are more particularly recited in claims 1, 16, and 19 as:
matching and calculating the preprocessed event to be processed with a preset event template to obtain a first matching degree…
inputting the event to be processed into a pre-trained semantic enhancement model for statement expansion to obtain a similar event of the event to be processed…
matching and calculating the similar event or the event to be processed with the preset event template to obtain a second matching degree…
calculating the first matching degree and the second matching degree according to a preset rule to obtain a first result and a second result respectively…
taking the preset event template corresponding to a larger one of the first result and the second result as a target event template to semantically understand the event to be processed…
Under Step 2A Prong One, claims 1, 16, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea and specifically a mental process. As detailed above, the steps of matching, inputting, calculating, understanding, etc. may be practically performed in the human mind with the use of a physical aid such as a pen and paper. For example, a human receptionist could receive a query from a client, compare the query with a list of frequently asked questions (FAQ) to obtain a first similarity score, re-write the client’s query to obtain a rewritten query, compare the rewritten query with the FAQ to obtain a second similarity score, and compare the first similarity score with the second similarity score, choosing the score with the highest value in order to best understand the client’s query.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims 1-19 and 21 do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 16 and 19 recite the additional elements of a pre-trained semantic enhancement model (¶ [0061]) and a processor (¶ [0112]). These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely equate to “apply it” or otherwise merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract which are not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, claims 1, 16, and 19 recite the additional elements of “preprocessing…” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities which are not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not recite 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 elements of using a computer is noted as a general computer {a processor (¶ [0112])}. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional limitations in the claims noted above are directed towards insignificant extra-solution activities. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 2, 17, and 21, the claim relates to weighting first and second matching degrees according to different weight values pre-assigned to the input event and the similar event. This relates to a human receptionist weighing the importance of FAQs compared to the input query. No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claims 3, the claim relates to weighing similar events greater than the input event. This relates to a human receptionist preferring to match the input query to an FAQ instead of answering the input query itself, thus assigning more weight to FAQs than the input query when determining which answers to provide. No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claims 4 and 18, the claim relates to storing similar events in a sample database as a training example. This relates to a human receptionist modifying the FAQ list to include a commonly asked input query. No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claims 5, the claim relates to converting similar events into a template via a Lexparser, and storing the template in a database. This relates to a human receptionist first changing the sentence structure of an input query before modifying the FAQ list to include the input query. The limitation of “a Lexparser syntax analysis tool” is recited at a high level of generality (¶ [0078]) and merely equates to “apply it” or otherwise merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract which are not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f). No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, the claim relates to the semantic enhancement model comprising a statement generator and statement discriminator. This relates to a human receptionist rewriting input queries into similar queries and validating the categories of questions comprised within the FAQ list. The limitation of “semantic enhancement model” is recited at a high level of generality (¶ [0061]) and merely equates to “apply it” or otherwise merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract which are not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f). No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 8, the claim relates to the preset event template comprising at least two word slots corresponding to separate word dictionaries, each word slot comprising a word tag indicating attributes of each dictionary. This relates to the FAQ list formatting each question as triples of subject, object, and predicate. No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 9 and 11, the claim relates to using keywords from the input event in order to fill the template word slots and obtain a target answer. This relates to the human receptionist identifying the subject, object, and predicate of the input query, creating a triple of the three aforementioned components, and then comparing the generated triple to the FAQ list to find an appropriate answer. No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 10, the claim relates to extracting keywords from input invents using a TF-IDF algorithm. This relates to the human receptionist identifying the subject, object, and predicate of the input query by analyzing TF-IDF metrics. No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 12, the claim relates to obtaining a first arrangement order from keywords of the input event. This relates to the human receptionist recording the structure of the input query (e.g. determining whether the input query is in a passive or active voice). No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 13, the claim relates to sorting a preset event template according to a second arrangement order. This relates to the human receptionist restricting FAQs in order to adhere to a standard triple format. No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 14, the claim relates to a method of calculating the first matching degree based off of feature and temporal similarity. This relates to the human receptionist determining whether the input query matches any FAQ by first decomposing the query and FAQs into feature vectors, obtaining temporal vectors for each query by analyzing the time of day that each query was received, using the feature vectors and the temporal vectors to obtain a feature similarity value and a temporal similarity value respectively, and then summing the feature and temporal similarity values in order to obtain the first matching degree. No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 15, the claim relates to feeding back the target answer to the user. This relates to the human receptionist returning to the user an answer to an FAQ that is most similar to the client’s input query. No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For all of the above reasons, taken alone or in combination, claims 1-19 and 21 recite a non-statutory mental process.
Claims 19 and 21 are drawn to a “signal” per se as recited in the preamble and as such is non-statutory subject matter. On paragraph [0156] of the Published Specification, the term “computer-readable storage medium" is not defined as to what the scope of the term is meant to encompass. Hence, one of ordinary skilled in the art can interpret such term to include transitory signals and non-transitory signals. It does not appear that a claim reciting a signal encoded with functional descriptive material falls within any of the categories of patentable subject matter set forth in § 101. First, a claimed signal is clearly not a "process" under § 101 because it is not a series of steps. The other three § 101 classes of machine, compositions of matter and manufactures "relate to structural entities and can be grouped as 'product' claims in order to contrast them with process claims." 1 D. Chisum, Patents § 1.02 (1994).
The Applicant' s Specification presents a broad definition as to what the “computer-readable storage medium” covers and is being made to include transitory and non-transitory signals. The Applicant’s Published Specification in paragraph [0156] refers to the “storage medium”. Hence, it appears that the claims appear to be drawn towards transitory signals, which is not subject matter eligible. In order to overcome the present rejection, the Applicant is advised to amend the claims by using the following terminology: "non-transitory computer readable storage medium." Such example terminology has been also found in the Official Gazette 1351 OG 212.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication 20200089768 A1 (Kim).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a semantic understanding method, comprising:
preprocessing an acquired event to be processed (Kim ¶ [0065], "First, the question receiver 510 receives a user question from a user terminal 110 (operation S61). ... The question receiver 510 may convert the user question into an appropriate form through an appropriate conversion process."), and matching and calculating the preprocessed event to be processed with a preset event template to obtain a first matching degree (Kim ¶ [0071]-[0072], "the first question extender 520 may generate a question template from the knowledge DB 400 based on a result of the analysis of the user question. ... Next, the first question extender 520 compares the generated question template with the user question and determines whether the generated question template and the user question match (operation S73)." The generated question template is considered analogous to a preset event template);
inputting the event to be processed into a pre-trained semantic enhancement model for statement expansion to obtain a similar event of the event to be processed (Kim ¶ [0076], "the natural language expanding module 531 of the second question extender 530 may provide various patterns for questions of a particular subject by using a natural language processing and generate similar question templates. In one embodiment, a question ‘Where is the birthplace of [Person]?’ has the same meaning with questions including ‘Where was [Person] born?’ and ‘Where is the place where [Person] born?’. In the second question extender 530, similar question templates may be generated by extending a question template including an entity-attribute combination through a natural language processing");
matching and calculating the similar event or the event to be processed with the preset event template to obtain a second matching degree (Kim ¶ [0073], " the second question extender 530 ... compares a result of the secondary extension with the user question.");
calculating the first matching degree and the second matching degree according to a preset rule to obtain a first result and a second result respectively (Kim ¶ [0079], "the paraphrasing engine 532 measures the similarity among a user question template and existing question templates and similar question templates generated by the first question extender 520 and select top N candidates from the total numbers of the question templates and the similar question templates" The number 'N' is considered analogous to a preset rule), and taking the preset event template corresponding to a larger one of the first result and the second result as a target event template to semantically understand the event to be processed (Kim ¶ [0079], "The paraphrasing engine 532 compares the user question with top N existing question templates and similar question templates and returns one question template considered as the most similar question template and the similarity thereof.").
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kim further discloses wherein the preset event template comprises at least two word dictionaries and word slots corresponding to the corresponding word dictionaries, and each of the word dictionaries has a corresponding word tag in the preset event template, and the word tag is configured to indicate a word attribute of the word dictionary (Kim ¶ [0059], "In FIG. 4, when a user question “what is the height of Mt. Paektu?” 410 is received, the user question 410 is analyzed (420) to extract keywords ‘Mt. Paektu’ and ‘height’, and the ‘Mt. Paektu’ may be analyzed as the subject of the user question 410 and the height may be analyzed as the intention of the user question 410. In this case, data having an entity=“Mt. Paektu” and attribute=“height” is searched for and an instant answer of the corresponding item is determined as a result value, thereby providing a corresponding answer 2,744 m to the user (450)." Entity 432 and attribute 434 are considered analogous to two word dictionaries corresponding to entity and attribute words specifically; see claim interpretation. 'Mt. Paektu' and 'height' are considered analogous to word tags indicating word attributes of each respective word dictionary).
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Kim further discloses filling at least two keywords contained in the event to be processed into the corresponding word slots of the target event template to obtain a target template file (Kim ¶ [0059], "In FIG. 4, when a user question “what is the height of Mt. Paektu?” 410 is received, the user question 410 is analyzed (420) to extract keywords ‘Mt. Paektu’ and ‘height’, and the ‘Mt. Paektu’ may be analyzed as the subject of the user question 410 and the height may be analyzed as the intention of the user question 410.");
inputting the target template file into an answer engine to perform an event retrieval operation, and outputting a target answer corresponding to the event to be processed (Kim ¶ [0059], "In this case, data having an entity=“Mt. Paektu” and attribute=“height” is searched for and an instant answer of the corresponding item is determined as a result value, thereby providing a corresponding answer 2,744 m to the user (450).").
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Kim further discloses inputting the target template file into the answer engine, wherein the answer engine locates a corresponding database according to the word tag corresponding to each keyword in the target template file, and acquires a corresponding target answer from the database according to each keyword (Kim ¶ [0058], "A knowledge DB 400 shown in FIG. 4 is a special knowledge base database in which data is stored in a semantic triple form simulating questions of actual users, where a unique instant answer may be searched for without a separate reasoning process The knowledge DB 400 has the form of entity 432-attribute 434-instant answer 438." See Figure 4. Instant answer 438 is considered analogous to target answer corresponding to keywords entity 432 and attribute 434).
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Kim further discloses recording a first arrangement order of the at least two keywords in the event to be processed (Kim ¶ [0069], "an entity and an attribute are retrieved from the user question by using a technique like a morphological analysis. Since an ordinary user asks a question in the form of entity+attribute, a sentence is sequentially analyzed to retrieve a group of candidates of the entity and the attribute from the user question." Sequentially analyzing a sentence is considered analogous to a first arrangement order. Entity+attribute is considered analogous to two keywords).
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated.
Kim further discloses wherein the at least two word dictionaries in the preset event template are sorted according to a preset second arrangement order (Kim ¶ [0058]-[0059], "A knowledge DB 400 shown in FIG. 4 is a special knowledge base database in which data is stored in a semantic triple form simulating questions of actual users, where a unique instant answer may be searched for without a separate reasoning process. The knowledge DB 400 has the form of entity 432-attribute 434-instant answer 438." ¶ [0067], “the first question extender 520 analyzes the user question to check whether a entity and an attribute are recognizable (operation S62). When the entity and attribute are recognized as a result of the analysis of the user question, a question template is generated to perform a first question extension, and it is checked whether the user question and the generated question template match (operation S64).” Entity 432-attribute 434-instant answer 438 is considered analogous to a preset second arrangement order. Thus, generating a question template from a user question for matching with a corresponding DB template is considered analogous to sorting word dictionaries in a preset event template according to the preset second arrangement order).
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Kim further discloses feeding back the target answer to a user in a preset display form (Kim ¶ [0082], "the question answering unit 550 transmits a user question result obtained through the first question extender 520 and the second question extender 530 to the user terminal 110 (operation S65). ... the question answering unit 550 transmits the user question result to a user terminal (operation S67).").
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of claim 16 are similar to that of claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claim 19
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing a plurality of instructions, wherein the instructions are suitable for being loaded by a processor (Kim ¶ [0093], "each of the above-mentioned modules/units is implemented in the form of software, which can be computer program(s) stored in a memory of the sentence generation apparatus and executable on a processor of the sentence generation apparatus.").
The remaining limitations of claim 19 are similar to that of claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
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 2-4, 10, 17-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim as applied to claims 1, 9, 16, and 19 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication 20190392066 A1 (Kim et al.).
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kim discloses all the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Kim. further discloses performing [weighted] calculations on the first matching degree and the second matching degree to obtain the first result and the second result (Kim ¶ [0079], "the paraphrasing engine 532 measures the similarity among a user question template and existing question templates and similar question templates generated by the first question extender 520 and select top N candidates from the total numbers of the question templates and the similar question templates" The number 'N' is considered analogous to a preset rule) [according to different weight values pre-assigned to the similar event and the event to be processed].
Kim does not explicitly disclose all of weighting events.
However, Kim et al. disclose performing weighted calculations on a first matching degree and a second matching degree to obtain a first result and a second result according to different weight values pre-assigned to a similar event and an event to be processed (Kim et al. ¶ [0074], " ¶ [0073]-[0074], "each of the semantic representations of the query and the query result includes a set of triples, where each triple t of the set of triples is associated with a different weight(t) and a score(t) ... The
s
c
o
r
e
q
u
e
r
y
... is a weighted average of the alignment scores (e.g., score(t)) of all triples in the semantic representation of the query. Similarly, the
s
c
o
r
e
a
n
s
w
e
r
... is a weighted average of the alignment scores (e.g., score(t)) of all triples in the semantic representation of the candidate query result.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Kim to incorporate Kim et al.’s weighted calculations because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Kim’s similarity scores and Kim et al.’s weighted similarity scores perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being predicting the most similar query to a user’s query. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of Kim’s similarity scores by replacing it with Kim et al.’s weighted similarity scores. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
Kim et al. further disclose wherein a similar eventof the similar event is greater than a weight value of the event to be processed (Kim et al. Table 2 illustrates a weight value (0.95) of a triple representing a candidate query (("save," Goal_Status, "gif format")) that is greater than the weight value (0.8) of the user query (("create," Object, "gif")).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
Kim further discloses storing the similar event corresponding to the larger one of the first result and the second result in a sample database of the semantic enhancement model (Kim ¶ [0081], "when the above-stated operation is completed, the second question extender 530 may store the top one question template including the user question, top N question templates, and system information including a search time, an operation, and a search speed in a separate DB.") as a newly added training sample (Kim ¶ [0083], "the training data builder 540 according to one or more embodiments uses training data for training the second question extender 530 by using the user question result through a neural machine translation (NTM) engine (operation S68). In other words, the second question extender 530 may perform a learning (training?) operation using the training data generated by the training data builder 540.").
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Kim discloses all the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Kim does not explicitly disclose all of extracting keywords using a TF-IDF algorithm.
However, Kim et al. disclose wherein a keyword is extracted from an event to be processed which is pre-converted into a text format by using a TF-IDF algorithm (Kim et al. ¶ [0078], "to model the importance of each individual word, the TF-IDF score can be derived from the query result repository based on the frequency the word appears in the query result repository and the inverse function of the number of in which the word appears").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Kim to incorporate Kim et al.’s TF-IDF keyword extraction because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Kim’s POS-based keyword extraction and Kim et al.’s TF-IDF-based keyword extraction perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being identifying the most relevant words within a user query. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of Kim’s POS-based keyword extraction by replacing it with Kim et al.’s TF-IDF-based keyword extraction. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 17 are similar in scope to that of claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claim 18
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 18 are similar in scope to that of claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claim 21
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 21 are similar in scope to that of claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication 20200279001 A1 (Prabhugaonkar et al.).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kim discloses all the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Kim. further discloses converting the similar event obtained by an operation of the statement expansion into a newly added preset event template (Kim ¶ [0076], "In the second question extender 530, similar question templates may be generated by extending a question template including an entity-attribute combination through a natural language processing") [based on a Lexparser syntax analysis tool], and storing the newly added preset event template in a database for storing the preset event template, so as to update the database (Kim ¶ [0081], "when the above-stated operation is completed, the second question extender 530 may store the top one question template including the user question, top N question templates, and system information including a search time, an operation, and a search speed in a separate DB.").
Kim does not explicitly disclose all of converting events into certain formats based on a Lexparser.
However, Prabhugaonkar et al. disclose converting the similar event [obtained by an operation of the statement expansion] into a newly added preset event [template] (Prabhugaonkar et al. ¶ [0066], "The first level of parsing is based on a constituency parser. Constituency parsing aims to extract a constituency-based parse tree from a sentence that represents its syntactic structure according to a phrase structure grammar. ... The constituency parse tree distinguishes between terminal and non-terminal nodes according to a phrase structure grammar. ... To identify the entities, the non-terminals and terminals of the parse tree are searched in the knowledge base") based on a Lexparser syntax analysis tool (Prabhugaonkar et al. ¶ [0066], "The system uses constituency parser powered by Stanford CoreNLP, a Java annotation pipeline framework to parse a user question.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Kim to incorporate Prabhugaonkar et al.’s Stanford CoreNLP parsing because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Kim’s parsing and Prabhugaonkar et al.’s Stanford CoreNLP parsing perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being understanding the user’s query through a standard format instead of natural language. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of Kim’s parsing by replacing it with Prabhugaonkar et al.’s Stanford CoreNLP. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated.
Kim further discloses wherein the semantic enhancement model comprises a statement generator (Kim ¶ [0081], " the second question extender 530 performs a secondary extension of the question template by generating a semantic similar question template using a natural language processing and a deep learning model (operation S66) and compares a result of the secondary extension with the user question.") [and a statement discriminator].
Prabhugaonkar et al. further disclose a statement discriminator (Prabhugaonkar et al. ¶ [0102], "The present system uses forward and backward parsing approach to store all the information associated with the entity (grammatical category, entity label, entity type, transactional information, etc) and later disambiguates and validates the entities as a whole rather at the entity level, which distinguishes the present system from currently available question answering systems." Validating and disambiguating entities is considered analogous to discriminating statements).
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated.
Kim further discloses wherein the statement generator is configured to generate the similar event based on a training sample (Kim ¶ [0081], " the second question extender 530 performs a secondary extension of the question template by generating a semantic similar question template using a natural language processing and a deep learning model (operation S66) and compares a result of the secondary extension with the user question.")….
Prabhugaonkar et al. further disclose wherein… the statement discriminator is configured to determine an authenticity of a tag corresponding to the similar event (Prabhugaonkar et al. ¶ [0102], "The present system uses forward and backward parsing approach to store all the information associated with the entity (grammatical category, entity label, entity type, transactional information, etc) and later disambiguates and validates the entities as a whole rather at the entity level, which distinguishes the present system from currently available question answering systems." Validating and disambiguating entities is considered analogous to determining the authenticity of a tag).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication 20210056266 A1 (Ma et al.) in view of US Patent Publication 20090006365 A1 (Liu et al.).
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Kim discloses all the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Kim does not explicitly disclose all of calculating feature vectors according to separate arrangement orders.
However, Ma et al. disclose calculating a text feature similarity value between the event to be processed and the preset event template according to the first text feature [vector] and the second text feature [vector] (Ma et al. ¶ [0013]-[0023], "[Step] 102: ... determining the structurally similar sentence(s) of the input sentence based on the similarity of the dependency tree of each sentence and the dependency tree of the input sentence, where a similarity of the dependency tree of the structurally similar sentence(s) and the dependency tree of the input sentence exceeds a preset similarity threshold.");
acquiring a first [temporal] feature vector of the event to be processed according to the first arrangement order (Ma et al. ¶ [0027], "[Step] 104: parsing the input sentence and the structurally similar sentence(s) to obtain a subject block, an object block, and a predicate block of ... the input sentence" ¶ [0048]-[0049], "the above-mentioned step 106 includes: ... obtaining ... a sum of word vectors of the input sentence." The unchanged order of subject, object, and predicate in the input sentence is considered analogous to a first arrangement order), and acquiring a second [temporal] feature vector (Ma et al. ¶ [0048]-[0049], "the above-mentioned step 106 includes: ... obtaining a sum of word vectors of any new sentence") of the preset event template according to the second arrangement order (Ma et al. ¶ [0032], "[Step] 105: rewriting the semantically similar sentence(s), and generating a new sentence by substituting the subject block
S
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
in the semantically similar sentences with the subject block in the input sentence
S
i
n
p
u
t
, substituting the object block
O
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
in the semantically similar sentences with the object block in the input sentence
O
i
n
p
u
t
, and substituting the predicate block
P
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
in the semantically similar sentences with the predicate block in the input sentence
P
i
n
p
u
t
." ¶ [0037], "the new sentence ... can be generated based on the input sentence (a passive sentence...), the structure of the new sentence is also the structure of the semantically similar sentences, that is, a passive sentence. Since the new sentence is obtained by substituting the related content in the semantically similar sentence based on the key sentence component of the input sentence, the semantic of the new sentence is similar to that of the input sentence." The structure of a semantically similar sentence (e.g. "passive") is considered analogous to a second arrangement order. Thus, replacing the parts (e.g. subject, object, predicate) of semantically similar sentence with the parts of an input sentence while retaining the semantic structure of the semantically similar sentence is considered analogous to acquiring a second feature vector according to a second arrangement order.); and
calculating a [temporal] feature similarity value between the event to be processed and the preset event template according to the first [temporal] feature vector and the second [temporal] feature vector (Ma et al. ¶ [0048]-[0050], "the above-mentioned step 106 includes: ... calculating a cosine similarity of the sum of the word vectors of the new sentence and the sum of the word vectors of the input sentence.")….
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Kim’s similarity calculations to incorporate Ma et al.’s order-based similarity calculations.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “Through such a method of sentence generation or expansion, multiple new sentences with different paraphrases can be obtained. Under the premise of ensuring the coverage of sentence similarity conversion, it can also improve the type and quantity of the new sentences automatically generated and expanded by the smart device, thereby improving the response speed and user experience of machine language” as noted by the Ma et al. disclosure in paragraph [0038].
Kim in view of Ma et al. does not explicitly disclose all of calculating temporal feature vectors.
However, Liu et al. disclose acquiring a first text feature vector of the event to be processed and a second text feature vector of the preset event template (Liu et al. ¶ [0016], "The preprocess queries component generates the representations of the queries with the reduced dimensionality and invokes the identify peaks component to identify the frequency peaks within the time sub-series." Queries are considered analogous to events);
calculating a text feature similarity value between the event to be processed and the preset event template according to the first text feature vector and the second text feature vector (Liu et al. ¶ [0012], "To identify queries that are similar to a target query, the query analysis system generates, for each query, an overall similarity score for that query and the target query based on the time series of the query and the target query. For example, the query analysis system may apply a cosine similarity metric, a Euclidean distance metric, a correlation metric, or some other metric to generate an overall similarity score indicating the similarity between two queries." An overall similarity score is considered analogous to a text feature similarity value);
acquiring a first temporal feature vector of the event to be processed [according to the first arrangement order], and acquiring a second temporal feature vector of the preset event template (Liu et al. ¶ [0014] -[0016], "In some embodiments, the query analysis system generates a representation of the time series of each query with a reduced dimensionality. ... The preprocessed query store may contain an entry for each query with a representation of the query with a reduced dimensionality and with an indication of whether the query has a peak during each time sub-series." A representation of a query that indicates a query's peak during time periods is considered analogous to temporal feature vectors) [according to the second arrangement order];
calculating a temporal feature similarity value between the event to be processed and the preset event template according to the first temporal feature vector and the second temporal feature vector (Liu et al. ¶ [0012], "The query analysis system also generates, for each query, partial similarity scores for the query and the target query based on various time sub-series of the overall time series of the queries. For example, if the overall time series has 365 intervals representing the days of a year, then there may be 12 time sub-series, each corresponding to the intervals within a month. The first 31 intervals (e.g., the first time sub-series) represent January, the next 28 intervals (e.g., the second time sub-series) represent February, and so on. The query analysis system may use the same metric or different metrics to calculate the overall similarity scores and the partial similarity scores." A partial similarity score for each query is calculated based on a temporal component of each query. Thus, the partial similarity score is considered analogous to a temporal feature similarity value); and
adding the text feature similarity value and the temporal feature similarity value to obtain the first matching degree (Liu et al. ¶ [0012], "The query analysis system may, for each query, combine its overall similarity score and its partial similarity scores to give a combined similarity score indicating the similarity of that query to the target query." A combined similarity score is considered analogous to a first matching degree).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Kim in view of Ma et al. to incorporate Liu et al.’s temporal feature vectors.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “if query trends can be accurately predicted, then advertisers can adjust their placement of advertisements in an attempt to maximize the advertising effectiveness. For example, if a query is likely to increase in the near future, an advertiser may want to increase the bid amount for terms of that query,” as noted by the Liu et al. disclosure in paragraph [0003].
Reference Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US Patent Publication 20220004589 A1 to Park et al. discloses identifying similar queries to a user query based on entity-attribute similarity calculations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB B VOGT whose telephone number is (571)272-7028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 8pm 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, PARAS D SHAH can be reached at (571)270-1650. 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.
/JACOB B VOGT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2653
/Paras D Shah/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
06/25/2026
Prosecution Insights