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 § 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 8-20 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.
As to claim 8, it recites “obtain sentence structure information through dependency parsing of the received sentence, wherein the sentence structure information comprises nodes corresponding to words included in the sentence and edges connecting two nodes having a dependency relation from among the plurality of nodes” in which it is not clear if the words “the received sentence” and “the sentence” both refer to “a sentence” in the first limitation.
In addition, the claim recites “set a search priority for searching a modification relation for each of the nodes included in the sentence structure information based on the obtained sentence structure information; search the modification relation based on the set search priority” in which it is not clear what set search priority (of the plurality of nodes) that the set search priority refers to. It is noted that the set search priority for each of the node(s) create a plurality of set search priority. As a result, it renders the claim indefinite. Corrections are respectfully required.
Claims 9-14 are dependent claims from claim 8. Thus, they are inherited the above deficiency.
As to claim 15, it recites “obtain sentence structure information through constituency parsing of the received sentence, wherein the sentence structure information expresses a hierarchical relation between constituents of the sentence, and comprises a plurality of nodes each of which has a constituency tag set to represent a grammatical constituent” in which it is not clear if the words “the received sentence” and “the sentence” both refer to “a sentence” in the first limitation.
The claim also recites “set a weight to each of the plurality of nodes based on the constituency tag set to each of the plurality of nodes; generate at least one segmentation position candidate for the sentence based on the set weight” in which it is not clear if the words “the sentence” and “the received sentence” (in the previous limitation) both refer to “a sentence” in the first limitation. In addition, since a weight is set to each of the plurality of nodes (“set a weight to each of the plurality of nodes based on the constituency tag set to each of the plurality of nodes”), it is not clear that “the set weight” (singular noun) actually refers to which one of the plurality of weight(s) that set to each of the plurality of nodes. As a result, it renders the claim indefinite. Corrections are respectfully required.
Claims 16-20 are dependent claims from claim 15. Thus, they are inherited the above deficiency.
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).
Conclusion
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. 7:30am-5pm; First Fri Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached on (571)-270-1698. 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
Prosecution Insights