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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being unpatentable by Zhou et al (“Zhou” US 7194455 B2), published on March 20, 2007.
As to claim 1, Zhou teaches “a communication interface connected to another computing device and receiving an input related to information about a grammar to be searched; and at least one processor configured to: obtain a query including information about the grammar to be searched based on the received input” in col. 10: 10-25 (the input query to search for “conforming sentence” is improved utilizing “Extended Index Terms” method in which indexing unit (from the input query) are added with phrasal verbs, dependency triple (corresponding to information about the grammar to be searched based on the received input)).
Zhou teaches “compare grammar structure information corresponding to the grammar included in the obtained query with sentence structure information of each sentence stored in a database and obtain a search result including at least one sentence having the grammar structure information according to a comparison result” in col. 10: 54-65. (“…The confirming sentences retrieved from sentence database 320 by search engine 315 using the extended indexing units for the particular input query are then ranked using a new ranking algorithm… the confirming sentences are ranked to determine the sentences which are the most grammatically or structurally similar to the input query…”. It is clear that confirming sentences are retrieved by comparing grammar information (in extended index including dependency triple) with input query based on grammar and sentence structure similarity)).
Zhou teaches “wherein the grammar structure information and the sentence structure information comprise structure information based on dependency parsing” in col. 9: 32-40 (disclosed of dependency parser), col. 10: table 2 (dependency triples)).
As to claim 6, Zhou teaches “analyze whether the sentence structure information of each of the sentences stored in the database comprises a same structure as that of grammar structure information corresponding to the grammar to be searched” in col. 10: 54-65. (“…The confirming sentences retrieved from sentence database 320 by search engine 315 using the extended indexing units for the particular input query are then ranked using a new ranking algorithm… the confirming sentences are ranked to determine the sentences which are the most grammatically or structurally similar to the input query…”)
Zhou teaches “and obtain the comparison result including pair data of at least one sentence-sentence structure information analyzed as including a same structure as that of the grammar structure information” in col. 7: 60-65 and col. 10: 54-65.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (“Zhou” US 7194455 B2), published on March 20, 2007 in view of Martinez-Guerra (US 6523172 B1), published on February 18, 2003.
As to claim 2, it appears Zhou does not explicitly teach “provide a first interface for selecting one of a plurality of preset grammars to the other computing device through the communication unit”.
However, Martinez-Guerra teaches “provide a first interface for selecting one of a plurality of preset grammars to the other computing device through the communication unit” in col. 13: 1-8 (grammar driven query based on user selection).
Zhou and Martinez-Guerra are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, database management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to provide an interface for query input, disclosed by Zhou, to include “provide a first interface for selecting one of a plurality of preset grammars to the other computing device through the communication unit”, as suggested by Martinez-Guerra in order to improve grammar driven query searching (see Martinez-Guerra col. 13).
Martinez-Guerra teaches “and receive an input for selecting one of the plurality of grammars through the communication unit based on the first interface” in col. 13: 1-8.
As to claim 3, Zhou teaches “obtain grammar structure information through dependency parsing for the selected grammar or obtain grammar structure information corresponding to the selected grammar from grammar structure information corresponding to each of the plurality of grammars stored in a database or memory” in col. 9: 35-45 (dependency triple as a result from parsing contains grammar structure).
As to claim 4, it appears Zhou does not explicitly teach “provide a second interface for inputting grammar structure information corresponding to the grammar to be searched to the other computing device through the communication unit”.
However, Martinez-Guerra teaches “provide a second interface for inputting grammar structure information corresponding to the grammar to be searched to the other computing device through the communication unit” in col. 12: 63-67 (grammar driven query corresponds to a second interface for inputting grammar structure information).
Zhou and Martinez-Guerra are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, database management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to provide an interface for query input, disclosed by Zhou, to include “provide a second interface for inputting grammar structure information corresponding to the grammar to be searched to the other computing device through the communication unit”, as suggested by Martinez-Guerra in order to improve grammar driven query searching (see Martinez-Guerra col. 13).
Martinez-Guerra teaches “and receive the grammar structure information through the communication unit based on the second interface” in col. 13: 1-8.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (“Zhou” US 7194455 B2), published on March 20, 2007 in view of Martinez-Guerra (US 6523172 B1), published on February 18, 2003 in further view of SHARMA et al (SHARMA “US 20200110784 A1), published on April, 09 2020.
As to claim 5, it appears Zhou and SHARMA do not explicitly teach “wherein the grammar structure information comprises a dependency tree corresponding to a dependency parsing result, and the at least one processor receives the grammar structure information including a value of each of a plurality of nodes constituting the dependency tree, and a value of each of at least one edge connecting two different nodes from among the plurality of nodes through the second interface”.
However, SHARMA teaches “wherein the grammar structure information comprises a dependency tree corresponding to a dependency parsing result, and the at least one processor receives the grammar structure information including a value of each of a plurality of nodes constituting the dependency tree, and a value of each of at least one edge connecting two different nodes from among the plurality of nodes through the second interface” in par. 0050, figures 5-6. (dependency parser produces a directed acyclic graph with nodes and edges contained values describing relationships between two connected edges).
Zhou, Martinez-Guerra and SHARMA are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, database management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to provide an interface for query input, disclosed by Zhou, to include “wherein the grammar structure information comprises a dependency tree corresponding to a dependency parsing result, and the at least one processor receives the grammar structure information including a value of each of a plurality of nodes constituting the dependency tree, and a value of each of at least one edge connecting two different nodes from among the plurality of nodes through the second interface”, as suggested by SHARMA in order to provide syntactic dependency (see SHARMA par. 0050).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (“Zhou” US 7194455 B2), published on March 20, 2007 in view of SHARMA et al (SHARMA “US 20200110784 A1), published on April, 09 2020.
As to claim 7, it appears Zhou does not explicitly teach “analyze whether the sentence structure information of each of the sentences comprises the same structure as that of the grammar structure information corresponding to the grammar to be searched based on an identity of respective words or parts of speech of nodes included in the grammar structure information, an identity of edges between the nodes, and an identity of respective dependency relation tags corresponding to the edges”.
However, SHARMA teaches “analyze whether the sentence structure information of each of the sentences comprises the same structure as that of the grammar structure information corresponding to the grammar to be searched based on an identity of respective words or parts of speech of nodes included in the grammar structure information, an identity of edges between the nodes, and an identity of respective dependency relation tags corresponding to the edges” in par. 0050, figures 5-6 (dependency parser produces a directed acyclic graph with nodes and edges contained values describing relationships between two connected edges).
Zhou and SHARMA are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, database management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to provide a graph of edges and nodes as a result of dependency parsing (disclosed by Zhou) including “analyze whether the sentence structure information of each of the sentences comprises the same structure as that of the grammar structure information corresponding to the grammar to be searched based on an identity of respective words or parts of speech of nodes included in the grammar structure information, an identity of edges between the nodes, and an identity of respective dependency relation tags corresponding to the edges”, as suggested by SHARMA in order to provide a syntactic dependency (see SHARMA par. 0050).
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments (on pages 11 and 12 of the remarks) with respect to claim 1, Applicant argues “As a non-limiting example, in the claimed system, what the user provides and what the query contains is grammar information designating the grammar the user wishes to find, not the content of a sentence”. Applicant’s argument is respectfully considered, but is not persuasive.
First of all, any arbitrary sentence always provides grammar information so that it is interpreted correctly. Grammar information (in a sentence) is used to structure the sentence. Therefore, providing a sentence includes providing grammar that is used to create that sentence. Applicant also argues that Zhou provides the input query can be a partial or whole English sentences. In order to determine whether an input is partial or whole English sentence, one has to be based on a grammatical aspect of an input. Thus, that input contains grammar information.
Applicant also argues that the indexing units (disclosed in Zhou’s) are different from the claimed “information about the grammar to be search”. Applicant’s argument is respectfully considered but is not persuasive. Zhou’s dependency triples are extracted from lemma contained in a user input. Lemma is determined by using grammar rules from a user input. Therefore, a user input must contain grammar information.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments (on pages 13 and 14 of the remarks) with respect to claim 1, Applicant argues “In other words, in Zhou the dependency triples serve as an auxiliary supplement to a lemma-based keyword search so as to improve its accuracy in retrieving confirming sentences, but they are not grammar structure information that is itself compared, as the search criterion, against the sentence structure information of each sentence stored in the database”. Applicant’s argument is respectfully considered, but is not persuasive. According to table 2 (on col. 10 of Zhou’s), all possible extended indexing units are listed as a lemma, lemma with POS, phrasal verb, dependency triples. Possible indexes are created based on the lemma by grammar structure (such as phrasal verb). Therefore, the comparison of all possible indexing units with a database to retrieve confirming sentences are based on the grammar structure of a sentence.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments (on pages 14 and 15 of the remarks) with respect to claim 1, Applicant argues “Ranking retrieved sentences by their degree of similarity to an input query sentence is a graded ordering of results; it is not a determination of whether each stored sentence's structure information includes a designated grammar structure”. Applicant’s argument is respectfully considered, but is not persuasive. The ranking algorithm, according to Zhou’s col. 10: 60-65, takes place after the retrieval of confirming sentences from the database. According to Zhou’s col. 7: 60-65, it is disclosed “confirming sentences should be close in sentence structure or form to the user’s input query..”. Therefore, Zhou’s suggests to compare user input query with sentences (in a database) with respect to a grammatical aspect of the sentence.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments (on pages 14 and 15 of the remarks) with respect to claim 1, Applicant argues “That is, Zhou's "grammatically or structurally similar" determination is implemented as a weighted term-vector similarity computation over indexing units, in which certain term types (e.g., verb-object triples) are merely given higher numerical weights. However, Zhou is silent with regard to comparing the dependency-parsing-based sentence structure information of each stored sentence with grammar structure information corresponding to a queried grammar, as required by claim 1”. Applicant’s argument is respectfully considered, but is not persuasive. The grammatically or structurally similar determination is implemented as a weighted term-vector similarity, according to Zhou’s (col. 8 and col. 9) is how to quantify sentence grammatical/structural comparison. In other words, a grammatical/structural aspect of two sentences are compared utilizing weighted term-vector similarity implementation.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments (on page 16 of the remarks) with respect to claim 1, Applicant argues “Zhou thus is silent with regard to its search result being obtained according to a comparison establishing that a retrieved sentence has the queried grammar structure”. Applicant’s argument is respectfully considered, but is not persuasive. In col. 9 and col. 10, Zhou teaches how an input query is processed to create dependency triples (based on grammatical structure of the sentence), and compare with the dependency triples database. In other words, Zhou teaches to provide search results based on dependency triples comparison wherein the dependency triples are created based on sentence grammatical information of sentences.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments (on page 17 of the remarks) with respect to claim 6, Applicant argues “Zhou is silent with regard to analyzing whether the sentence structure information of each stored sentence includes the same structure as grammar structure information, and says nothing about obtaining a comparison result including pair data of a sentence and its sentence structure information”. Applicant’s argument is respectfully considered, but is not persuasive. Again, in col. 9 and col. 10, Zhou teaches how an input query is processed to create dependency triples (based on grammatical structure of the sentence), and compare with the dependency triples database. As a result, Zhou teaches to analyzing whether the sentence structure information of each stored sentence includes the same structure as grammar structure information. In col. 10: 60-67, Zhou teaches the ranking algorithm to provide a list of confirming sentences that are ranked. The most similar confirming sentence combined with the input sentence are a pair of data as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loc Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-8485. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri (8:00 am - 5:00 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-272-3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LOC TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
