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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 12/12/2024.
Claims 1 - 20 are pending and have been examined.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REF and further in view of REF2.
As per claim 1. A method comprising: receiving a first query from a first user, wherein the first query comprises a plurality of terms (Trafny [cl.2 lns 6-10: query with terms received from user.]);
determining that a response to the first query cannot be generated due to inability to analyze a particular term of the first query (Trafny [cl.2 lns 50-65: “According to the above example, the system may be unable to determine an answer for “what is the longest river in Spain.””]);
receiving a second query from the first user; determining that the second query is a modified version of the first query, wherein the particular term of the first query was replaced by a replacement term (Trafny [id. “After failing to determine an answer, the system may determine similar items to those previously indexed and determine if the system has an answer for the user question restructured with the similar item(s). For example, the system may change the body of water from “river” to “lake” and determine whether the system knows an answer to “what is the longest lake in Spain.””]; [cl.11 lns 35-55: “Moreover, a user of the system may manually create relationships between portions of data corresponding to failed questions.”]; [cls.13-14, lns 1-15 in cl.14: “The NLU component 260 attempts to make a semantic interpretation of the phrases or statements represented in the text data input therein.”]);
generating a reply to the second query based on a database (Trafny [cl.5 lns 40-65: “The server(s) 120 may determine answers to one or more of the new interpretations (e.g., a second question and a third question).”]);
based at least in part on the determining that the response to the first query cannot be generated, updating the database to indicate that the particular term shares a definition with the replacement term for the first user (Trafny [cl.3 lns 40-65: “When the server(s) 120 determines a word of the question corresponds to a word in the indexed dictionary, the server(s) 120 associates the word of the question with the label of the corresponding word in the indexed dictionary.”]; [cl.13 lns 25-45: updating profiles using word associations.]);
receiving a third query from the first user comprising the particular term; and generating a reply to the third query based on the updated database (Trafny [cl.4 lns 55-65: “A single new interpretation may use one newly determined related word or more than one newly determined related word.“]; [cl.5 lns 35-65: “The server(s) 120 may determine answers to one or more of the new interpretations (e.g., a second question and a third question).”])).
Although Trafny teaches updating database and use of answers, it does not explicitly teach a structured reply similar to a template.
However, Venk in an analogous art teaches structured reply (Venk [0010-113: Structured template]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the structured template of Venk into the answer format of Trafny to produce an expected result of using a structured template for replies to queries. Furhter, the two techniques found in the references are interchangeable in a database setting producing a high expectation of success. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide human like answers that are relevant by continuously updating templated answers (Venk [0002]).
As per claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the response to the first query cannot be generated due to inability to analyze the particular term of the first query further comprises determining that a template for response to the first query cannot be identified (Trafny [cl.2 lns 50-65: “According to the above example, the system may be unable to determine an answer for “what is the longest river in Spain.””]; [cl.12 lns 3-15; structured; cl.2 lns 50-60: template answer]).
As per claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the response to the first query cannot be generated due to inability to analyze the particular term of the first query further comprises determining that the particular term is not present and not defined within the database (Trafny [See claim 1 rejection. Also, see cl.4 lns 55-65 for new words and undetermined words.]).
As per claim 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising outputting an error message in response to determining that the response to the first query cannot be generated (Trafny [cl.3 lns 1-10: “If the system is unable to determine an answer to the related question, the system may either attempt to determine answers to other related questions or output an indication to the user that the system could not determine an answer.”]).
As per claim 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the error message comprises a message that the first query is not understood (Trafny [cl.3 lns 1-10: “If the system is unable to determine an answer to the related question, the system may either attempt to determine answers to other related questions or output an indication to the user that the system could not determine an answer.”]).
As per claim 6. The method of claim 4, wherein the second query is received subsequent to the outputting the error message (Trafny [cl.3 lns 1-10: “If the system is unable to determine an answer to the related question, the system may either attempt to determine answers to other related questions or output an indication to the user that the system could not determine an answer.” Further, Trafny invention teaches that multiple iterations may be run. Meaning, after the error message is sent, new associations and interpretation can be updated and later run the second query. (See cl.5 lns 45-55)]).
As per claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the second query is the modified version of the first query comprises determining that the second query has a same sentence structure as the first query, wherein one or more words of the first query are the same word and are in the same sentence position as the one or more words of the second query (Trafny [cl.3 lns 1-10: “If the system is unable to determine an answer to the related question, the system may either attempt to determine answers to other related questions or output an indication to the user that the system could not determine an answer.”]; [cl.5 lns 45-55:” The server(s) 120 may cause (150) the highest scoring answer (if the highest scoring answer is associated with a confidence value satisfying a threshold confidence value) to be output to the user 5 via a device (110a/110b).”]).
As per claim 8. The method of claim 7, wherein the determining that the second query has a same sentence structure as the first query comprises: determining [a number of matching terms] between the first query and the second query; and determining that the number of matching terms exceeds a threshold number of matching terms (Trafny [cl.12 lns 10-30: “Based on the original determination of the content based on the first text data (e.g., the first word) and the determination that the second text data (e.g., the second word or the third word) is collectively represented in the content (e.g., the first content and the second content) at least the threshold number of times, the system may associate (310) the first text data (e.g., the first word) and the second text data (e.g., the second word or the third word) in the relational knowledge base 277.”]).
Although Trafny does not explicitly teach number of matching terms, it teaches determining matching terms and counting the number of times the terms were found in content together for a threshold amount. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the counting to incorporate the terms. Making this modification would produce an expected result of counting terms. Since counting instantiation of content to compare to a threshold number is taught, counting numbers in a similar fashion using terms has a high expectation of success. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize word association as provided by Trafny.
As per claim 9. The method of claim 1, further comprising identifying a template for response to the first query based on the updated database including the particular term and the definition of the replacement term as the definition of the particular term (Trafny [See claim 1 rejection. Also, see cl.4 lns 55-65 for new words and undetermined words.]; [cl.2 lns 50-65: “According to the above example, the system may be unable to determine an answer for “what is the longest river in Spain.””]; [cl.12 lns 3-15; structured; cl.2 lns 50-60: template answer]).
As per claim 10. The method of claim 9, further comprising updating the identified template for response to the first query by replacing the replacement term with the particular term in the identified template (Trafny [cl.3 lns 40-65: “When the server(s) 120 determines a word of the question corresponds to a word in the indexed dictionary, the server(s) 120 associates the word of the question with the label of the corresponding word in the indexed dictionary.”]; [cl.13 lns 25-45: updating profiles using word associations.]; [cl.8 lns 3-50: “The tuple knowledge base 279 may include a collection of tuples or otherwise semantically (or otherwise) encoded data that can be queried to obtain information.”]).
Dependent claims 11-20 are similarly rejected by claims 1-10, respectively. Further, a system is taught by Trafny on column 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP1353281A1 – Teaches query processing and modifying language to allow users to be accustomed to the conversational flow.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Taelor Kim whose telephone number is (571) 270-7166. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (11AM-5PM) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ajay Bhatia can be reached on 571-272-3906. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-8166.
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.
Taelor Kim
/TAELOR KIM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
