DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the application filed 10 December 2024.
Claims 21-40 are currently pending and considered below.
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 Objections
Claims 36 objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 3-4, it is believed the limitation “the second domain corresponds to a second organization this is different from the first organization” has a minor error and should be ‘the second domain corresponds to a second organization that is different from the first organization’.
Claims 37-38 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 37 line 3, it is believed the limitation “accessing, a data store, first information for the first participant” has a minor error and should be ‘accessing, in a data store, first information for the first participant’. Claim 38 is objected to for depending upon an objected to claim without providing a remedy.
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 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the second domain of the first participant" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be interpreted as ‘determining the second domain of the second participant’. Claims 25-27 are rejected for depending upon a rejected claim without providing a remedy.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Further, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In claims 21, 34 and 40 the limitations receiving one or more words from a first participant during conversation between the first participant and a second participant; extracting a tag for an entity from the one or more words; determining the entity has a first definition in a first domain of the first participant and a second definition in a second domain of the second participant; and providing, during the conversation, the first definition to the second participant, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically managing personal behavior, relationship or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting a “system comprising: a processing unit; and memory storing instructions” (claim 21) and a “device comprising: a processing unit; and memory storing instructions” (claim 40) nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being methods for organizing human activity. For example, a person is capable of receiving one or more words from a first participant during conversation between the first participant and a second participant (e.g. a human advisor may listen to words uttered by a first participant in a conversation between two participants); extracting a tag for an entity from the one or more words (e.g. the human advisor may extract a tag (label) from the words for an entity (e.g. an acronym)); determining the entity has a first definition in a first domain of the first participant and a second definition in a second domain of the second participant (e.g. the human advisor may determine that the acronym has different definitions in the respective domains of the participants); and providing, during the conversation, the first definition to the second participant (e.g. the human advisor may provide the acronym definition of the first participant’s domain to the second participant).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements – a “system comprising: a processing unit; and memory storing instructions” (claim 21) and a “device comprising: a processing unit; and memory storing instructions” (claim 40) which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated above, the claims recite the additional limitations of a “system comprising: a processing unit; and memory storing instructions” (claim 21) and a “device comprising: a processing unit; and memory storing instructions” (claim 40). However, these are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications (see Applicant’s specification [00103]-[00106]). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite:
wherein the entity represents a topic of the conversation (the human advisor may determine a topic of the conversation);
wherein: the one or more words are expressed in natural language; and a natural language understanding processor is used to extract the tag from the one or more words (the human advisor understands words in natural language and the NLP processor is generic);
wherein the operations further comprise: determining the first domain of the first participant based on a first context associated with the first participant; and determining the second domain of the first participant based on a second context associated with the second participant (the human advisor may determine the domains based on corresponding contexts);
wherein the first context and the second context are determined based on the conversation (the human advisor may determine contexts based on the conversation);
wherein: the first context is determined by evaluating a first graph database associated with the first participant; and the second context is determined by evaluating a second graph database associated with the second participant, wherein the first graph database is different from the second graph database (the human advisor may look up different databases to determine the contexts);
wherein evaluating the first graph database associated with the first participant comprises: identifying, in the first graph database, a first tag node corresponding to the tag; and evaluating one or more second nodes linked to the first tag node; and determining the first context based on the one or more second nodes (the human advisor may look up at nodes at the different databases to determine the contexts);
wherein determining the entity has the first definition in the first domain of the first participant comprises: identifying a first node corresponding to the tag in a first graph database associated with the first participant; and determining the first node includes or is associated with the first definition (the human advisor may look up at nodes in a database to determine the first definition);
wherein determining the entity has the second definition in the second domain of the second participant comprises: identifying a second node corresponding to the tag in a second graph database associated with the second participant; and determining the second node includes or is associated with the second definition (the human advisor may look up at nodes in a database to determine the second definition);
wherein providing, during the conversation, the first definition to the second participant comprises: providing the tag as a selectable option in a user interface used by the second participant to participate in the conversation (providing data in a user interface is routine in the computing arts);
wherein the one or more words are provided in a first section of the user interface and the tag is provided as the selectable option in a second section of the user interface (presenting data in different sections of a user interface is routine in the computing arts);
wherein selection of the selectable option causes the first definition to be presented to the second participant (selecting data on a user interface for presentation is routine in the computing arts);
wherein the providing, during the conversation, the first definition to the second participant comprises: inserting the tag as a link into the one or more words (inserting data as a link in a user interface is routine in the computing arts).
The additional recited limitations further narrow the steps of the independent claims without however providing “a practical application of” or "significantly more than" the underlying “Mental Processes” abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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 21-25 and 30-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastide et al. (US 2019/0171710) in view of Chacko et al. (US 2009/0254800).
Claim 21:
Bastide discloses a system comprising: a processing unit; and memory storing instructions that, when executed, perform operations ([0072]-[0073]) comprising:
receiving one or more words from a first participant during conversation between the first participant and a second participant (“a user 160 of the client device 120 can generate, using the electronic messaging application 125, an electronic message 170 indicating at least one recipient, for example a user 165 of the client device 140”, [0034], see also “Bob generates the electronic message 170, indicating Alice as a recipient, and asks in the electronic message “What's up with Product Z?””, [0056]);
extracting a tag for an entity (topic) from the one or more words (“the electronic messaging service 115 can identify the n-grams “What's up,” “with,” and “Product Z.” Based on these n-grams, the electronic messaging service 115 can identify the topic of the electronic message 170 as being “Product Z.””, [0057]);
determining a first domain of the first participant and a second domain of the second participant (“The electronic messaging service 115 can access their respective user profiles 180, 185 and identify the following user contexts for Bob and Alice”, [0058], see also “Bob: Java Developer, OAuth, Z-series, Project Management, Software Group, Ferraris, Scuba Diving”, [0059] and “Alice: Z-series, Software Development, Java Developer, OAuth, Software Group, Hiking, Soccer, Fishing”, [0060]); and
providing, during the conversation, data related to the entity to the second participant (“The electronic messaging service 115 can add to an instance 170-1 of the electronic message 170 being sent to Alice the shared user contexts “Z-series,” “Java Developer” and “Software Group,” which relate to the topic “Product Z,” as shared user contexts 310”, [0061]).
Bastide does not explicitly disclose determining the entity has a first definition in a first domain of the first participant and a second definition in a second domain of the second participant; and providing, during the conversation, the first definition to the second participant.
In an analogous system providing, during a conversation between a first participant and a second participant, data related to an entity related to one or more words of the conversation, Chacko discloses:
determining the entity has a first definition in a first domain of the first participant and a second definition in a second domain of the second participant (“If a single term has distinct definitions in the dictionaries of the remote and local users”, [0016], see also “Conflicting definitions may be automatically detected and flagged to both users, inviting clarification”, [0019] and “Terms are often used by one person with a certain intended meaning. In many instances, a meaning of a term is specific to a project and well-known by many people associated with the project. Miscommunication and misunderstanding may result if one party has a different meaning of a term than a meaning understood by another party”, [0002]); and
providing, during the conversation, the first definition to the second participant (“If a single term has distinct definitions in the dictionaries of the remote and local users, a word processing application may highlight the clash of terms to notify users. Both definitions may be presented to the remote user”, [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the references to yield the predictable result of determining Bastide’s entity has a first definition in a first domain of the first participant and a second definition in a second domain of the second participant; and providing, during the conversation, the first definition to the second participant in order to avoid confusion which may be raised because the same word may have different meanings depending on a participant’s domain (see Chacko, (“Terms are often used by one person with a certain intended meaning. In many instances, a meaning of a term is specific to a project and well-known by many people associated with the project. Miscommunication and misunderstanding may result if one party has a different meaning of a term than a meaning understood by another party”, [0002]).
Claim 22:
Bastide in view of Chacko discloses the system of claim 21 wherein the entity represents a topic of the conversation (Bastide, [0057]).
Claim 23:
Bastide in view of Chacko discloses the system of claim 21 wherein the one or more words are expressed in natural language; and a natural language understanding processor is used to extract the tag from the one or more words (Bastide, [0042]).
Claim 24:
Bastide in view of Chacko discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the operations further comprise: determining the first domain of the first participant based on a first context associated with the first participant; and determining the second domain of the second participant based on a second context associated with the second participant (Bastide, “Responsive to identifying the n-gram(s) contained in the text, the electronic messaging service 115 can access one or more user profiles 180, 185 of the user 160 who generated the electronic message 170 and one or more of the recipients (e.g., the user 165) to whom the electronic message 170 is to be sent. From the user profiles 180, 185, the electronic messaging service 115 can identify user contexts for each of the users 160, 165, including user contexts that pertain to a subject of the electronic message 170 … the user contexts may include, but are not limited to, projects to which the users 160, 165 are or have been assigned, area of expertise and/or experience of the users 160, 165, companies and/or departments in which the users 160, 165 work or have worked, interests of the users 160, 165, endorsements the users 160, 165 have received relating to their experience and/or expertise”, [0041]).
Claim 25:
Bastide in view of Chacko discloses the system of claim 24, wherein the first context and the second context are determined based on the conversation (Bastide, [0041]).
Claim 30:
Bastide in view of Chacko discloses the system of claim 21, wherein providing, during the conversation, the first definition to the second participant comprises: providing the tag as a selectable option in a user interface used by the second participant to participate in the conversation (Chacko, “When communicating with a remote user, terms may be presented as hyperlinks to the remote user”, [0019], see also “If the remote user follows the presented hyperlink (e.g. clicking or hovering), the definition may be displayed by the word processing application”, [0015]).
Claim 31:
Bastide in view of Chacko discloses the system of claim 30, wherein the one or more words are provided in a first section of the user interface and the tag is provided as the selectable option in a second section of the user interface (Chacko, “It is contemplated that a defined word may include an alert, or notification, which signifies that the term has an associated user-definition. For example, the word may be displayed with a visual marker, such as a different font, a different color, underlined, highlighted and other means for distinguishing the term from the rest of the text of the document”, [0012], see also “If the remote user follows the presented hyperlink (e.g. clicking or hovering), the definition may be displayed by the word processing application”, [0015], note that different words occupy different sections in the display).
Claim 32:
Bastide in view of Chacko discloses the system of claim 31, wherein selection of the selectable option causes the first definition to be presented to the second participant (Chacko, “If the remote user follows the presented hyperlink (e.g. clicking or hovering), the definition may be displayed by the word processing application”, [0015]).
Claim 33:
Bastide in view of Chacko discloses the system of claim 30, wherein the providing, during the conversation, the first definition to the second participant comprises: inserting the tag as a link into the one or more words (Chacko, “When communicating with a remote user, terms may be presented as hyperlinks to the remote user”, [0019], see also “If the remote user follows the presented hyperlink (e.g. clicking or hovering), the definition may be displayed by the word processing application”, [0015]).
Claim 34:
Bastide in view of Chacko discloses performing the steps executed by the system of claim 21 as shown above.
Claim 35:
Bastide in view of Chacko discloses the method of claim 34 wherein extracting the tag is based on a context of the conversation, the context relating to at least one domain of the first participant or the second participant (Bastide, “Responsive to identifying the n-gram(s) contained in the text, the electronic messaging service 115 can access one or more user profiles 180, 185 of the user 160 who generated the electronic message 170 and one or more of the recipients (e.g., the user 165) to whom the electronic message 170 is to be sent. From the user profiles 180, 185, the electronic messaging service 115 can identify user contexts for each of the users 160, 165, including user contexts that pertain to a subject of the electronic message 170 … the user contexts may include, but are not limited to, projects to which the users 160, 165 are or have been assigned, area of expertise and/or experience of the users 160, 165, companies and/or departments in which the users 160, 165 work or have worked, interests of the users 160, 165, endorsements the users 160, 165 have received relating to their experience and/or expertise”, [0041]).
Claim 36:
Bastide in view of Chacko discloses the method of claim 34 wherein: the first domain corresponds to a first organization or a first department in the first organization; and the second domain corresponds to a second organization this is different from the first organization or a second department in the second organization, wherein the first department is different from the second department (Bastide, “Responsive to identifying the n-gram(s) contained in the text, the electronic messaging service 115 can access one or more user profiles 180, 185 of the user 160 who generated the electronic message 170 and one or more of the recipients (e.g., the user 165) to whom the electronic message 170 is to be sent. From the user profiles 180, 185, the electronic messaging service 115 can identify user contexts for each of the users 160, 165, including user contexts that pertain to a subject of the electronic message 170 … the user contexts may include, but are not limited to, projects to which the users 160, 165 are or have been assigned, area of expertise and/or experience of the users 160, 165, companies and/or departments in which the users 160, 165 work or have worked, interests of the users 160, 165, endorsements the users 160, 165 have received relating to their experience and/or expertise”, [0041], see also “a user 165 does not work in the same department and/or company as the user 160”, [0052]).
Claim 37:
Bastide in view of Chacko discloses the method of claim 34, wherein determining the entity has the first definition in the first domain of the first participant comprises: accessing, a data store (the dictionaries of the remote and local users), first information for the first participant; and evaluating the first information to identify at least one of: the first definition or the first domain (Chacko, “If a single term has distinct definitions in the dictionaries of the remote and local users”, [0016], see also “Conflicting definitions may be automatically detected and flagged to both users, inviting clarification”, [0019]).
Claim 38:
Bastide in view of Chacko discloses the method of claim 37, wherein determining the entity has the second definition in the second domain of the second participant comprises: accessing, in the data store (the dictionaries of the remote and local users), second information for the second participant; evaluating the second information to identify at least one of: the second definition or the second domain; and determining a difference between at least one of: the first domain and the second domain; or the first definition and the second definition (Chacko, “If a single term has distinct definitions in the dictionaries of the remote and local users”, [0016], see also “Conflicting definitions may be automatically detected and flagged to both users, inviting clarification”, [0019]).
Claim 39:
Bastide in view of Chacko discloses the method of claim 34, wherein providing, during the conversation, the second definition to the first user comprises: providing a selectable link to the second definition, wherein the second definition is provided in response to selection of the selectable link (Chacko, “When communicating with a remote user, terms may be presented as hyperlinks to the remote user”, [0019], see also “If the remote user follows the presented hyperlink (e.g. clicking or hovering), the definition may be displayed by the word processing application”, [0015]).
Claim 40:
Bastide in view of Chacko discloses a device comprising: a processing unit; and memory storing instructions that, when executed, perform operations (Bastide[0072]-[0073]) comprising the steps of process claims 34 as shown above.
Claims 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastide et al. (US 2019/0171710) in view of Chacko et al. (US 2009/0254800) and Kartha et al. (US 2016/0292304).
Claim 26:
Bastide in view of Chacko discloses the system of claim 24, wherein: the first context is determined by evaluating a first database associated with the first participant; and the second context is determined by evaluating a second database associated with the second participant, wherein the first graph database is different from the second graph database (Bastide, “the electronic messaging service 115 can store, or access, one or more databases correlating various n-grams to their meanings and correlating various user contexts to their meanings”, [0042]).
Bastide does not explicitly disclose that the databases are graph databases.
In an analogous art similarly processing knowledge representation in databases, Kartha discloses that the databases are graph databases (“Knowledge representation in multi-layered database includes systems and methods for storing and retrieving data in the multi-layered database. In the multi-layered database, an action graph database includes participant-entity nodes corresponding to real world entities and action nodes corresponding to action capabilities of the real world entities”, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the references to yield the predictable result of substituting Bastide’s databases with graph databases “due to their capability of storing an enormous volume of dynamic and sparse datasets, and further due to their capability of facilitating retrieval of complex query with less computational cost by the virtue of graph traversals” (Kartha, [0003]).
Claim 27:
Bastide in view of Chacko and Kartha discloses the system of claim 26, wherein evaluating the first graph database associated with the first participant comprises: identifying, in the first graph database, a first tag node corresponding to the tag; and evaluating one or more second nodes linked to the first tag node; and determining the first context based on the one or more second nodes (Kartha, “Each node and edge can have several properties associated therewith for storing attributes of the node and edge, respectively. These properties can further be attached to each node and edge as key-value pairs. These properties facilitate in information retrieval from the graph database by means of (indexed) search based on these stored properties. Further, information retrieval can also be performed by means of graph traversal”, [0029]).
Claim 28:
Bastide in view of Chacko discloses the system of claim 21 but does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the entity has the first definition in the first domain of the first participant comprises: identifying a first node corresponding to the tag in a first graph database associated with the first participant; and determining the first node includes or is associated with the first definition.
In an analogous art similarly processing knowledge representation in databases, Kartha discloses that the databases are graph databases where “Each node and edge can have several properties associated therewith for storing attributes of the node and edge, respectively. These properties can further be attached to each node and edge as key-value pairs. These properties facilitate in information retrieval from the graph database by means of (indexed) search based on these stored properties. Further, information retrieval can also be performed by means of graph traversal”, ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the references to yield the predictable result of substituting Bastide’s databases with graph databases thereby identifying a first node corresponding to the tag in a first graph database associated with the first participant; and determining the first node includes or is associated with the first definition because graph databases are able “of storing an enormous volume of dynamic and sparse datasets, and further due to their capability of facilitating retrieval of complex query with less computational cost by the virtue of graph traversals” (Kartha, [0003]).
Claim 29:
Bastide in view of Chacko and Kartha discloses the system of claim 28, wherein determining the entity has the second definition in the second domain of the second participant comprises: identifying a second node corresponding to the tag in a second graph database associated with the second participant; and determining the second node includes or is associated with the second definition (Kartha, ([0029], note this is merely repeating the steps of claim 28 for the second definition).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Balasubramanian et al. (US 2016/0173428) discloses a technology related to enhancing a message with supplemental content. The system may enhance a message based on topics identified in past correspondence messages or topics anticipated based on an intended recipient of a correspondence message being drafted. The system can operate in combination or conjunction with a language prediction system, an optimizing language model, and a text input method. The systems and methods provide users with supplemental content at a time and in a specific situation, which allows for effective targeting of content.
De Kezel et al. (US 2014/0025767) discloses user-personalized displays of information which can present users with lists of messages to which they have access, wherein the list comprises a plurality of links to additional displays each of which presents the user with information pertaining to that particular message/sub-message, e.g. the message/sub-message, discussion boards, comment chains, chat histories, or the like. Accordingly, in such embodiments, the message/sub-messages, discussions boards, comment chains, chat histories, etc. all can be stored in one or more central databases.
Bhogal et al. (US 2016/0321469) discloses a method for providing audience-based redaction of sensitive information in an electronic document may include receiving a request from a computing device to access an electronic document, retrieving the electronic document, identifying the user(s) associated with the computing device, determining an access level for each user associated with the computing device, determining the lowest access level for the user(s) associated with the computing device, generating a rendering of the electronic document for display on the computing device based on the lowest access level for the user(s) associated with the computing device, and providing the rendering of the electronic document to the computing device for display. When generating the rendering of the electronic document for display, sensitive information in the electronic document is typically redacted based on the lowest access level for the user(s) associated with the computing device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL G NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm 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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
/SAMUEL G NEWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights