DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of following reasons:
US Patent US 12135739 contain(s) every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application 18/935254 and thus anticipate or obvious the claim(s) of the instant application. Claims of the instant application 18/935254, therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a 35 patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION F£)R REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
The dependent claims are anticipated or obvious by the species of the patented invention. Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim). This court's predecessor has held that, without a terminal disclaimer, the species claims preclude issuance of the generic application. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761,767 (CCPA 1982); Schneller, 397 F.2d at 354. Accordingly, absent a terminal disclaimer. The dependent claims were properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting." (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993).
18/935254
US 12135739
A method comprising:
providing, by a processing device, a plurality of conversations to a neural network to generate a plurality of clusters;
determining that a first cluster of the plurality of clusters overlaps a second cluster of the plurality of clusters based on information indicating that a conversation matches a query without being a part of the first cluster;
generating an updated set of keywords for the first cluster of the plurality of clusters; and
linking the plurality of conversations and the updated set of keywords to prevent processing a duplicate cluster.
1. A method comprising:
providing, by a processing device, a plurality of conversations to a neural network to generate a plurality of clusters;
selecting, for each cluster of the plurality of clusters, a topic and one or more keywords from one or more n-grams; evaluating, for each cluster of the plurality of clusters, the topic and the one or more keywords by searching historical conversations and current conversations to identify one or more conversations related to the cluster;
determining, based on one or more false positives (FPs), that a first cluster of the plurality of clusters overlaps a second cluster of the plurality of clusters, wherein a FP is a conversation that matches a query without being a part of the first cluster;
executing a remedial action to prevent processing a duplicate cluster responsive to determining that the first cluster of the plurality of clusters overlaps the second cluster of the plurality of clusters by
generating an updated set of keywords for the first cluster of the plurality of clusters and augmenting a search query associated with the first cluster of the plurality of clusters; storing topic memberships by
linking the plurality of conversations and the updated set of keywords;
and configuring a real-time query data store to answer topic queries associated with the topic memberships.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims at a high level recite classifying and marching documents.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 1-20 recite a method and a system and therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine and a product.
The USPTO Guidance recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (Step 2A, Prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2). MPEP §§ 2106.04(a), (d).
Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look in Step 2B to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field; or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
First, determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Claim 1 recites –
▪ providing, by a processing device, a plurality of conversations to a neural network to generate a plurality of clusters (Amount to “Apply it”. Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Examiner’s note: high level application of using neural network to form clusters amount to merely invoking a computer component to apply the exception);
▪ determining that a first cluster of the plurality of clusters overlaps a second cluster of the plurality of clusters based on information indicating that a conversation matches a query without being a part of the first cluster (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can logically associate clusters based on matching);
▪ generating an updated set of keywords for the first cluster of the plurality of clusters (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can mentally add keywords to clusters); and
▪ linking the plurality of conversations and the updated set of keywords to prevent processing a duplicate cluster (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can logically link data and not discard duplicate data).
These limitations, based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a mental process, i.e. a judicial exception. For these reasons, the independent claim 1, as well as independents claims 8 and 15, which include limitations commensurate in scope with claim 1, recite a judicial exception.
A method, like the claimed method, “a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” See Digitech Image Techs, LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results from certain results of the collection and analysis was held to be an abstract idea. See In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 795—96 (CCPA 1982), which held that “a mental process that a neurologist should follow” when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions was not patentable.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
Next determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). To integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claim elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Additional elements:
▪ computer-readable medium, a memory; a processing device and a neural network (Amount to “Apply it”. Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Examiner’s note: high level application of using machine learning model to classify document amount to merely invoking a computer component to apply the exception);
The term “additional elements” for claim features, limitations, or steps that the claim recites beyond the identified judicial exception. Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the additional elements, however, claims do not recite any improvements to these additional elements, nor does the claims recite any particularly programmed or configured computer system, device, or machine learning. Rather, the additional elements in claims 1, 8 and 15 serve merely to automate the abstract idea. See Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., 50 F. 4" 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“[A] patent that ‘automate[s] “pen and paper methodologies” to conserve human resources and minimize errors’ is a ‘quintessential “do it on a computer” patent’ directed to an abstract idea.”) (quoting Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Therefore, none of these recited additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements listed above that relate to computing components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as communicating and processing known data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. There is no technological problem that the claimed invention solves. Rather, the computer system is invoked merely as a tool. Accordingly, the 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. Therefore, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For these reasons, independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 8 and 15, which include similar additional elements as claim 1, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
Next, determine whether the claims recite an “inventive concept” that “must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer.” BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see MPEP § 2106.05(d). There must be more than “computer functions [that] are “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225 (2014) (second alteration in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)); see MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Step 2B: The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il). Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer and associated computer network to obtain data, use data to identify other data, and comparing data, are some of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of displaying, processing and storing data using some unspecified, generic computer).
Note, that in similar case, such as Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), the Courts have identified that the additional elements of displaying and analyzing data, as shown in the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Consequently, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
No “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract method of organizing human activity into a patent-eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05. Rather, the additional elements identified above are merely well-understood, conventional computer components, as confirmed by the Specification. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(1). For example, the Specification refers to the additional elements in generic terms.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements relating to computing components amount to no more than applying the exception using a generic computing components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed computer components (i.e., additional elements) includes any generic computing components that are capable of being programmed to communicate and process known data.
Additionally, the computer components are used for performing insignificant extra-solution activity and well understood, routine, and conventional functions. For example, the claimed processor and machine learning merely communicates and processes known data. Activities such as these are insignificant extra-solution activity and, therefore, well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); see also, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price); CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754 (Consulting and updating an activity log); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Recording a customer’s order); Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017) (Identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price). Furthermore, limitations such as integrating account details are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).
Independent system claim 1, 8 and 15 contain the identified abstract ideas, with the additional elements of a processor, hardware and the media, which is a generic computer component, and thus not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale above.
Dependent 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 claims further describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of the dependent claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 2, 9, 16:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ identifying, for each cluster of the plurality of clusters, a topic and a keywork without considering information from another cluster (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can perform identification or topics and ignoring unrelated data).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to claims 3, 10 and 17:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ determining a first size of the first cluster of the plurality of clusters; determining a second size of the second cluster of the plurality of clusters; and comparing the first size of the first cluster and the second size of the second cluster to a predetermined threshold (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can perform size determining and comparison of clusters).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to claims 4, 11 and 18:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ categorizing the first cluster according to a first level of significance responsive to comparing the first size of the first cluster to the predetermined threshold; and categorizing the second cluster according to a second level of significance responsive to comparing the second size of the second cluster to the predetermined threshold (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can perform categorization and comparison of size to threshold).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to claims 5, 12 and 19:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ measuring a ratio of false positives FPs associated with the first cluster; and determining, using heuristics, that the first cluster is a subtopic of the second cluster (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can logically determine FPs).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to claims 6, 13 and 20:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ determining, for a candidate cluster of the plurality of clusters, a cluster size to allow an extraction of a highest-order n-gram from the candidate cluster, wherein an n-gram may be a unigram, a bigram, and a trigram; and generating the candidate cluster having the cluster size (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can mentally perform extraction of n-grams).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to claims 7 and 14:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ determining, using search results, an accuracy indicating a degree in which the set of keywords identify the first cluster (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can mentally determine accuracy).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 are thus, also patent ineligible for the reasons discussed above.
Claim Objections /Construction
▪ Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite limitation – “information indicating that a conversation matches a query without being a part of the first cluster”. It is not exactly clear of what is being require by such limitation, as the claim requires matching some unrelated query to some unrelated conversation. Given that a plurality of conversations are initially clustered, it is not clear to what the single “conversation” is referring to and how / where it is stored if it is “without being a part of the first cluster.” I.e. the “conversation” is unrelated to the first cluster, the second cluster or the plurality of clusters. It seems that some unknown, unrelated query is looking for a match to a conversation that is not related to any of the cited clusters and if the query can’t find the conversation in the first cluster it determines that the first and second clusters overlap, which is perplexing and is open to various undue interpretations and arguments and to avoid a rejection under 35 USC 112 2nd paragraph..
▪ Claims 1, 8 and 15 further recite “prevent processing a duplicate cluster”. It is not clear how is the duplicate cluster relates to the rest of the claim. I.e. a duplicate of what – the first cluster, second cluster? Otherwise, the limitation requires avoiding a processing of some unrelated cluster.
▪ Further, it is not clear of paragraphs that provide a support for the complete limitation “linking the plurality of conversations and the updated set of keywords to prevent processing a duplicate cluster”. The applicant should explicitly indicate specific paragraphs from the specification that provide a description for the limitation in order to avoid a rejection under 35 USC 112 1st paragraph.
▪ Claims 2, 9 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims recite “keywork” which should be corrected to “keyword.”
▪ Claims 5, 12 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims recite acronym characters FP without first defining the acronym in the claim. Acronym characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the specification should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other acronyms or abbreviations which may appear in the specification or other claims. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that it was meant – false positives - .
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 1, 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (US 20100312769).
Regarding claim 1, Bailey teaches a method comprising:
providing, by a processing device, a plurality of conversations to a
determining that a first cluster of the plurality of clusters overlaps a second cluster of the plurality of clusters based on information indicating that a conversation matches a query without being a part of the first cluster ([0068]-[0069]);
generating an updated set of keywords for the first cluster of the plurality of clusters ([0070] “a list of words and phrases is generated that have high IDF values indicative of the most descriptive words and phrases in the message set, along with the associated neighborhood sentiment value for each word and phrase in the list”, [0113]); and
linking the plurality of conversations and the updated set of keywords ([0077]-[0078], [0084], [0136] “a listing of other topic group IDs associated with the message sets that are responsive to the topic group request, and sample messages from these message sets”) to prevent processing a duplicate cluster ([0068] “remaining soft cluster overlaps are eliminated by assigning each message that is present in more than one cluster to the one cluster having the "closest"”, [0069] “Two clusters are merged”, C6 “eliminating duplication of messages so that each text message is found in only one soft cluster”).
Bailey does not explicitly teach a neural network. Instead, Bailey teaches using classification rules derived or inferred from knowledge base to generate embeddings (vectors), using machine learning, such as Support Vector Machines ([0046]). Given that the claimed “neural network” is merely applied in the present invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Bailey to include a neural network machine learning as well-known means for cluster generation. Doing so would allow for effective handling of large datasets that can learn complex, non-linear, complex hierarchical representations of data relationships.
However, alternatively such neural network is fully disclosed by Munavalli et al. (US 20220108080) in [0022], [0063] and Misiewicz et al. (US 20220138258) in [0019], [0027]-[0028], [0048]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Bailey to include a neural network as disclosed by Misiewicz or Munavalli. Doing so would enable an improved searching experience (Misiewicz [0022]).
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munavalli et al. (US 20220108080) in view of Nadolski et al. (US 20180241764) and in further view of Misiewicz et al. (US 20220138258).
Regarding claim 1, Munavalli teaches a method comprising:
providing, by a processing device, a plurality of conversations to a neural network ([0022], [0063]) to generate a plurality of clusters ([0035]);
determining that a first cluster of the plurality of clusters overlaps a second cluster of the plurality of clusters based on information indicating that a conversation matches a query without being a part of the first cluster ([0045], [0054], [0057]-[0058], [0081] “determine … whether the response … matches (e.g., is in the same cluster of agent responses as) the actual response to user utterance …may be based on how close the response was to the actual response … if the response was not from the same cluster of agent responses as the actual response but was from the next-closest cluster”)(see NOTE);
generating an updated set of keywords for the first cluster of the plurality of clusters ([0061], [0079], where intents are keywords); and
linking the plurality of conversations and the updated set of keywords ([0061])
Munavalli does not explicitly teach, however Nadolski discloses prevent processing a duplicate cluster ([0010], [0188], [0204] and [0209]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Munavalli to prevent processing a duplicate cluster as disclosed by Nadolski. Doing so would help identify hidden relationships and drive increased efficiencies (Nadolski [0075]).
NOTE Given the indefiniteness for the limitation above, if Munavalli does not explicitly teach, however Misiewicz discloses based on information indicating that a conversation matches a query without being a part of the first cluster ([0063] “cluster is receiving a high amount or volume of searches, but is not returning search results (e.g., has a low search result rate) ... causing the failure to generate a search result for the search terms of the cluster”, [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Munavalli to include query match without being a part of the first cluster as disclosed by Misiewicz. Doing so would enable an improved searching experience (Misiewicz [0022]).
Claims 8 and 15 recite substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Munavalli as modified teaches the method, the system and the medium further comprising: identifying, for each cluster of the plurality of clusters, a topic and a keywork without considering information from another cluster (Misiewicz [0041], [0044], [0081]).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Munavalli as modified teaches the method, the system and the medium, further comprising:
determining a first size of the first cluster of the plurality of clusters (Misiewicz [0021], [0017], [0050], [0067]);
determining a second size of the second cluster of the plurality of clusters (Misiewicz [0044]); and comparing the first size of the first cluster and the second size of the second cluster to a predetermined threshold (Misiewicz [0037], [0043], [0050]-[0052]).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Munavalli as modified teaches the method, the system and the medium, further comprising:
categorizing the first cluster according to a first level of significance (Misiewicz [0054]-[0063], [0076]) responsive to comparing the first size of the first cluster to the predetermined threshold (Misiewicz [0037], [0043], [0050]-[0052], [0076]); and
categorizing the second cluster according to a second level of significance responsive (Misiewicz [0054]-[0062]) to comparing the second size of the second cluster to the predetermined threshold (Misiewicz [0037], [0043], [0050]-[0052], [0077], [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Huddleston to include cluster size analysis and categorization as disclosed by Misiewicz. Doing so would reduce the instances of noisy and overlarge clusters and enable an improved searching experience (Misiewicz [0017], [0022)).
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munavalli as modified and in further view of Chen et al. (US 20170126603) and Salammagari et al. (US 20200082214).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Munavalli as modified teaches the method, the system and the medium, further comprising:
measuring
Munavalli does not explicitly teach, however Chen discloses measuring a ratio of false positives FPs associated with the first cluster ([0025], [0027], [0044]) and determining, using heuristics, that the first cluster is a subtopic of the second cluster ([0040] [0046], where “RMF representing a set of topics” Abstract, [0093], [0099]).
Munavalli does not explicitly teach, however Salammagari discloses determining, using heuristics, that the first cluster is a subtopic of the second cluster ([0062], [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Munavalli to measuring a ratio of false positives FPs associated with the first cluster as disclosed by Chen and determining, using heuristics, that the first cluster is a subtopic of the second cluster as discoed by Salammagari. Doing so would handle data in clustered systems in an efficient and scalable manner (Chen [0017)) and provide effective assistance to the customers and improve a quality of customer interaction experience (Salammagari [0005]).
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munavalli as modified and in further view of Huddleston et al. (US 20180293607).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Munavalli as modified does not explicitly teach, however Huddleston discloses the method, the system and the medium, wherein providing, by the processing device, the plurality of conversations to the neural network to generate the plurality of clusters, comprising:
determining, for a candidate cluster of the plurality of clusters, a cluster size to allow an extraction of a highest-order n-gram from the candidate cluster, wherein an n-gram may be a unigram, a bigram (Huddleston [0466]), and a trigram (Huddleston [0468]); and generating the candidate cluster having the cluster size (Huddleston [0190]-[0191], Misiewicz [0017], [0021], [0050]- [0052], [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Munavalli as modified to include highest-order n-gram as disclosed by Huddleston. Doing so would allow more efficient and accurate analytics generation by identifying most relevant contextual dimensions (Huddleston [0073]).
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munavalli as modified and in view of Epstein et a. (US 20160062985).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Munavalli as modified does not explicitly teach, however Epstein discloses the method and the system, further comprising: determining, using search results, an accuracy indicating a degree in which the set of keywords identify the first cluster (Epstein [0055], [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Munavalli as modified to include accuracy degree as disclosed by Epstein. Doing so would improve context modeling accuracy and improve accuracies of the language models (Epstein [0003], [0057]).
Further note additional prior art (US 10410626) discloses claims 7 and 14 in C36L9-13, 36-41 and further obviates the teachings of Munavalli.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated on PTO-892 .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to POLINA G PEACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/POLINA G PEACH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 October 5, 2025