DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101
3. Claims 7 and 11 were analyzed under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) with respect to the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (PEG). The claimed subject matter regards capturing an image of a quick response (QR) code via a camera, extracting a uniform resource locator (URL) associated with the QR code from the captured image and retrieving the document from a server using the URL. The closest abstract idea category would be the mental process category; however, a human could not practically capture an image of a quick response (QR) code, extracting a uniform resource locator (URL) associated with the QR code from the captured image and retrieving the document from a server using the URL. Accordingly, these claims are found to be patent eligible in step 2A prong 1 of the 2019 PEG.
Double Patenting
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 9-10, 12-14 and 20 of the pending application 19/002174 filed on 12/26/2024 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (1+2), 1, (6+7), 8, 8, 9 and (1+2) of the issued patent 11,093,691 respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the pending application are similar in scope in comparison to the issued patent. Please see the table below for claim similarities for the independent claim. The pending application and the issued patent refer to the same method for injecting one or more metatags into the document to determine a response to an interrogatory based on analyzing the document with the injected metatags. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steps of injecting one or more metatags into the document to determine a response to an interrogatory based on analyzing the document with the injected metatags as recited in the issued patent US 11,093,691 B1 to injecting one or more metatags into the document to determine a response to an interrogatory based on analyzing the document with the injected metatags as claimed in the pending application.
Pending Application 19/002174
Issued Patent 11,093,691
1. A method for generating a response to an interrogatory about a document, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, a document;
preprocessing, by a natural language processor associated with the computing system, the document, to generate a markup version of the document, wherein preprocessing the document comprises injecting, into the document, metatags that contextually identify portions of the document;
receiving, by the computing system from a user device, an interrogatory about content of the document;
analyzing, by the computing system, the interrogatory to determine a meaning of the interrogatory;
analyzing, by the computing system, the markup version to identify a portion of the metatags within the document responsive to the interrogatory;
generating, by the computing system, a response to the interrogatory comprising the portion of metatags in the document; and
transmitting, by the computing system, the response comprising the identified content to the user device.
1. A method of establishing a communication session, comprising:
receiving, at a computing system from a camera associated with a client device, an image of a content item comprising text-based content;
generating, by the computing system, a mark-up version of the content item by identifying both one or more characters in the text-based content and a relative location of the one or more characters in the content item;
receiving, at the computing system from the client device, an interrogatory related to the content item;
analyzing, by the computing system, the mark-up version of the content item to identify an answer to the interrogatory;
generating, by the computing system, a response message comprising the identified answer to the interrogatory; and
transmitting, by the computing system, the response message to the client device, the transmitting comprising:
augmenting the content item illustrated on a display associated with the client device, while the content item remains within a line-of-vision of the camera by:
identifying a location of the identified answer within a portion of the content item within the line-of-vision of the camera; and
highlighting the identified answer on the display.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein generating, by the computing system, the mark-up version of the content item by identifying both the one or more characters in the text-based content and the relative location of the one or more characters in the content item, comprises: injecting one or more metatags into the content item to form the mark-up version.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the response further comprises:
modifying, by the computing system, the document by highlighting the portions of the document associated with the portion of the metatags; and
causing, by the computing system, display of the modified document with the highlighting.
1. A method of establishing a communication session, comprising:
receiving, at a computing system from a camera associated with a client device, an image of a content item comprising text-based content;
generating, by the computing system, a mark-up version of the content item by identifying both one or more characters in the text-based content and a relative location of the one or more characters in the content item;
receiving, at the computing system from the client device, an interrogatory related to the content item;
analyzing, by the computing system, the mark-up version of the content item to identify an answer to the interrogatory;
generating, by the computing system, a response message comprising the identified answer to the interrogatory; and
transmitting, by the computing system, the response message to the client device, the transmitting comprising:
augmenting the content item illustrated on a display associated with the client device, while the content item remains within a line-of-vision of the camera by:
identifying a location of the identified answer within a portion of the content item within the line-of-vision of the camera; and
highlighting the identified answer on the display.
10. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions which, when executed by a processor, causes a computing system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by the computing system, a document;
generating, by the computing system a markup version of the document by injecting, into the document, metatags that contextually identify portions of the document;
receiving, by the computing system from a user device, an interrogatory about content of the document;
analyzing, by the computing system, the interrogatory to determine a meaning of the interrogatory;
analyzing, by the computing system, the markup version to identify a portion of the metatags within the document responsive to the interrogatory;
generating, by the computing system, a response to the interrogatory comprising the portion of metatags in the document; and
transmitting, by the computing system, the response comprising the identified content to the user device.
6. A non-transitory computer readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, comprising:
receiving, from a camera associated with a client device, an image of a content item comprising text-based content;
generating a mark-up version of the content item by identifying both one or more characters in the text-based content and a relative location of the one or more characters in the content item;
receiving, from the client device, a natural-language message related to the content item; identifying an interrogatory in the natural-language message;
analyzing the mark-up version of the content item to identify an answer to the interrogatory; and
notifying the client device of the identified answer, the notifying comprising:
augmenting the content item illustrated on a display associated with the client device, while the content item remains within a line-of-vision of the camera by:
identifying a location of the identified answer within a portion of the content item within the line-of-vision of the camera; and
highlighting the identified answer on the display.
7. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 6, wherein generating the mark-up version of the content item by identifying both the one or more characters in the text-based content and the relative location of the one or more characters in the content item, comprises: injecting one or more metatags into the content item to form the mark-up version.
12. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein analyzing, by the computing system, the markup version to identify content responsive to the interrogatory, comprises:
identifying one or more possible answers to the interrogatory; and
generating a confidence score for each possible answer of the one or more possible answers.
8. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 6, wherein analyzing the mark-up version of the content item to identify the answer to the interrogatory, comprises:
identifying one or more possible answers to the interrogatory;
generating a confidence score for each possible answer of the one or more possible answers;
identifying a possible answer that is associated with a highest confidence score; and
setting the possible answer associated with the highest confidence score as the answer to the interrogatory.
13. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 12, wherein the analyzing, by the computing system, the markup version to identify content responsive to the interrogatory, further comprises:
identifying a possible answer that is associated with a highest confidence score; and setting the possible answer associated with the highest confidence score as the answer to the interrogatory.
8. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 6, wherein analyzing the mark-up version of the content item to identify the answer to the interrogatory, comprises:
identifying one or more possible answers to the interrogatory;
generating a confidence score for each possible answer of the one or more possible answers;
identifying a possible answer that is associated with a highest confidence score; and
setting the possible answer associated with the highest confidence score as the answer to the interrogatory.
14. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 12, wherein the analyzing, by the computing system, the markup version to identify content responsive to the interrogatory, further comprises:
determining that the confidence score for each possible answer is below a threshold confidence score;
based on the determining, generating a clarification question seeking clarification of the identified interrogatory; and
transmitting the clarification question to the user device.
9. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 6, wherein analyzing the mark-up version of the content item to identify the answer to the interrogatory, comprises:
identifying one or more possible answers to the interrogatory;
generating a confidence score for each possible answer of the one or more possible answers;
determining the confidence score for each possible answer is below a threshold confidence score;
based on the determining, generating a clarification question seeking clarification of the identified interrogatory; and
transmitting the clarification question to the client device.
20. A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having programming instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a user device, an interrogatory related to content of a document;
preprocessing, by a natural language processor, the document, to generate a markup version of the document, wherein preprocessing the document comprises injecting, into the document, metatags that contextually identify portions of the document;
analyzing the interrogatory to determine a meaning of the interrogatory;
analyzing the markup version to identify a portion of the metatags within the document responsive to the interrogatory;
generating a response to the interrogatory comprising the portion of metatags in the document; and
transmitting the response comprising the identified content to the user device.
1. A method of establishing a communication session, comprising:
receiving, at a computing system from a camera associated with a client device, an image of a content item comprising text-based content;
generating, by the computing system, a mark-up version of the content item by identifying both one or more characters in the text-based content and a relative location of the one or more characters in the content item;
receiving, at the computing system from the client device, an interrogatory related to the content item;
analyzing, by the computing system, the mark-up version of the content item to identify an answer to the interrogatory;
generating, by the computing system, a response message comprising the identified answer to the interrogatory; and
transmitting, by the computing system, the response message to the client device, the transmitting comprising:
augmenting the content item illustrated on a display associated with the client device, while the content item remains within a line-of-vision of the camera by:
identifying a location of the identified answer within a portion of the content item within the line-of-vision of the camera; and
highlighting the identified answer on the display.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein generating, by the computing system, the mark-up version of the content item by identifying both the one or more characters in the text-based content and the relative location of the one or more characters in the content item, comprises: injecting one or more metatags into the content item to form the mark-up version.
This is a non-provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have in fact been patented.
6. Claims 1-2, 9-10, 12-17 and 20 of the pending application 19/002174 filed on 12/26/2024 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (1+2), 7, 1, (8+9), 10, 10, 11, 11, 12, 13 and (1+2) of the issued patent 12,182,494 respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the pending application are similar in scope in comparison to the issued patent. Please see the table below for claim similarities for the independent claim. The pending application and the issued patent refer to the same method for injecting one or more metatags into the document to determine a response to an interrogatory based on analyzing the document with the injected metatags. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steps of injecting one or more metatags into the document to determine a response to an interrogatory based on analyzing the document with the injected metatags as recited in the issued patent US 12,182,494 to injecting one or more metatags into the document to determine a response to an interrogatory based on analyzing the document with the injected metatags as claimed in the pending application.
Pending Application 19/002174
Issued Patent 12,182,494
1. A method for generating a response to an interrogatory about a document, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, a document;
preprocessing, by a natural language processor associated with the computing system, the document, to generate a markup version of the document, wherein preprocessing the document comprises injecting, into the document, metatags that contextually identify portions of the document;
receiving, by the computing system from a user device, an interrogatory about content of the document;
analyzing, by the computing system, the interrogatory to determine a meaning of the interrogatory;
analyzing, by the computing system, the markup version to identify a portion of the metatags within the document responsive to the interrogatory;
generating, by the computing system, a response to the interrogatory comprising the portion of metatags in the document; and
transmitting, by the computing system, the response comprising the identified content to the user device.
1. A method of establishing a communication session, comprising:
receiving, by a computing system from a camera of a client device, a live stream of a textual document comprising text-based content;
receiving, by the computing system, an interrogatory related to the text-based content in the textual document;
analyzing, by the computing system, the textual document to identify an answer to the interrogatory in the textual document; and
augmenting the textual document illustrated on a display associated with the client device, while the textual document remains within a line-of-vision of the camera by:
identifying a location of the identified answer within a portion of the textual document within the line-of-vision of the camera, and highlighting the identified answer on the display by augmenting the display corresponding to the location of the identified answer, wherein the highlighting comprises:
generating a meta information, wherein the meta information indicates the location of the identified answer within the portion of the textual document, and
overlaying the meta information over the portion of the textual document within the line-of-vision of the camera.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing, by the computing system, the textual document to identify the answer to the interrogatory in the textual document comprises:
analyzing one or more metatags injected into the textual document to identify the answer in the textual document.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein receiving, by the computing system, the interrogatory related to the document comprises receiving a voice message comprising the interrogatory.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein receiving, by the computing system, the interrogatory related to the text-based content in the textual document comprises:
receiving a voice message comprising the interrogatory; and
converting the voice message to text using natural language processing techniques.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the response further comprises:
modifying, by the computing system, the document by highlighting the portions of the document associated with the portion of the metatags; and
causing, by the computing system, display of the modified document with the highlighting.
1. A method of establishing a communication session, comprising:
receiving, by a computing system from a camera of a client device, a live stream of a textual document comprising text-based content;
receiving, by the computing system, an interrogatory related to the text-based content in the textual document;
analyzing, by the computing system, the textual document to identify an answer to the interrogatory in the textual document; and
augmenting the textual document illustrated on a display associated with the client device, while the textual document remains within a line-of-vision of the camera by:
identifying a location of the identified answer within a portion of the textual document within the line-of-vision of the camera, and highlighting the identified answer on the display by augmenting the display corresponding to the location of the identified answer, wherein the highlighting comprises:
generating a meta information, wherein the meta information indicates the location of the identified answer within the portion of the textual document, and
overlaying the meta information over the portion of the textual document within the line-of-vision of the camera.
10. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions which, when executed by a processor, causes a computing system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by the computing system, a document;
generating, by the computing system a markup version of the document by injecting, into the document, metatags that contextually identify portions of the document;
receiving, by the computing system from a user device, an interrogatory about content of the document;
analyzing, by the computing system, the interrogatory to determine a meaning of the interrogatory;
analyzing, by the computing system, the markup version to identify a portion of the metatags within the document responsive to the interrogatory;
generating, by the computing system, a response to the interrogatory comprising the portion of metatags in the document; and
transmitting, by the computing system, the response comprising the identified content to the user device.
8. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions which, when executed by a processor, causes a computing system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by the computing system from a camera of a client device, a live stream of a textual document comprising text-based content;
receiving, by the computing system, an interrogatory related to the text-based content in the textual document;
analyzing, by the computing system, the textual document to identify an answer to the interrogatory in the textual document; and
augmenting the textual document illustrated on a display associated with the client device, while the textual document remains within a line-of-vision of the camera by:
identifying a location of the identified answer within a portion of the textual document within the line-of-vision of the camera, and highlighting the identified answer on the display by augmenting the display corresponding to the location of the identified answer, wherein the highlighting comprises:
generating a meta information, wherein the meta information indicates the location of the identified answer within the portion of the textual document, and
overlaying the meta information over the portion of the textual document within the line-of-vision of the camera.
9. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein analyzing, by the computing system, the textual document to identify the answer to the interrogatory in the textual document comprises:
analyzing one or more metatags injected into the textual document to identify the answer in the textual document.
12. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein analyzing, by the computing system, the markup version to identify content responsive to the interrogatory, comprises:
identifying one or more possible answers to the interrogatory; and
generating a confidence score for each possible answer of the one or more possible answers.
10. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein analyzing, by the computing system, the textual document to identify the answer to the interrogatory, comprises:
identifying one or more possible answers to the interrogatory;
generating a confidence score for each possible answer of the one or more possible answers;
identifying a possible answer that is associated with a highest confidence score; and
setting the possible answer associated with the highest confidence score as the answer to the interrogatory.
13. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 12, wherein the analyzing, by the computing system, the markup version to identify content responsive to the interrogatory, further comprises:
identifying a possible answer that is associated with a highest confidence score; and setting the possible answer associated with the highest confidence score as the answer to the interrogatory.
10. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein analyzing, by the computing system, the textual document to identify the answer to the interrogatory, comprises:
identifying one or more possible answers to the interrogatory;
generating a confidence score for each possible answer of the one or more possible answers;
identifying a possible answer that is associated with a highest confidence score; and
setting the possible answer associated with the highest confidence score as the answer to the interrogatory.
14. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 12, wherein the analyzing, by the computing system, the markup version to identify content responsive to the interrogatory, further comprises:
determining that the confidence score for each possible answer is below a threshold confidence score;
based on the determining, generating a clarification question seeking clarification of the identified interrogatory; and
transmitting the clarification question to the user device.
11. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein analyzing, by the computing system, the textual document to identify the answer to the interrogatory, comprises:
identifying one or more possible answers to the interrogatory;
generating a second confidence score for each possible answer of the one or more possible answers;
determining that the second confidence score for each possible answer is below a threshold confidence score;
based on the determining, generating a clarification question seeking clarification of the identified interrogatory;
transmitting the clarification question to the client device;
receiving, from the client device, a clarification answer from the client device; and parsing the clarification answer to identify a revised interrogatory contained therein.
15. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving, by the computing system from the user device, a clarification answer from the user device; and
parsing, by the computing system, the clarification answer to identify a revised interrogatory contained therein.
11. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein analyzing, by the computing system, the textual document to identify the answer to the interrogatory, comprises:
identifying one or more possible answers to the interrogatory;
generating a second confidence score for each possible answer of the one or more possible answers;
determining that the second confidence score for each possible answer is below a threshold confidence score;
based on the determining, generating a clarification question seeking clarification of the identified interrogatory;
transmitting the clarification question to the client device;
receiving, from the client device, a clarification answer from the client device; and parsing the clarification answer to identify a revised interrogatory contained therein.
16. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise:
analyzing, by the computing system, the document to identify a revised answer to the revised interrogatory;
generating, by the computing system, a second confidence score for the revised answer; determining, by the computing system, that the second confidence score for the revised answer is at least greater than a threshold confidence score; and
setting, by the computing system, the revised answer as the answer to the interrogatory.
12. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, further comprising:
analyzing the textual document to identify a revised answer to the revised interrogatory;
generating a confidence score for the revised answer;
determining that the confidence score for the revised answer is at least greater than the threshold confidence score; and
setting the revised answer as the answer to the interrogatory.
17. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein receiving, by the computing system from the user device, the interrogatory related to the document comprises: receiving a voice message comprising the interrogatory; and
converting the voice message to text using natural language processing techniques.
13. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein receiving, by the computing system, the interrogatory related to the text-based content in the textual document comprises:
receiving a voice message comprising the interrogatory; and
converting the voice message to text using natural language processing techniques.
20. A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having programming instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a user device, an interrogatory related to content of a document;
preprocessing, by a natural language processor, the document, to generate a markup version of the document, wherein preprocessing the document comprises injecting, into the document, metatags that contextually identify portions of the document;
analyzing the interrogatory to determine a meaning of the interrogatory;
analyzing the markup version to identify a portion of the metatags within the document responsive to the interrogatory;
generating a response to the interrogatory comprising the portion of metatags in the document; and
transmitting the response comprising the identified content to the user device.
1. A method of establishing a communication session, comprising:
receiving, by a computing system from a camera of a client device, a live stream of a textual document comprising text-based content;
receiving, by the computing system, an interrogatory related to the text-based content in the textual document;
analyzing, by the computing system, the textual document to identify an answer to the interrogatory in the textual document; and
augmenting the textual document illustrated on a display associated with the client device, while the textual document remains within a line-of-vision of the camera by:
identifying a location of the identified answer within a portion of the textual document within the line-of-vision of the camera, and highlighting the identified answer on the display by augmenting the display corresponding to the location of the identified answer, wherein the highlighting comprises:
generating a meta information, wherein the meta information indicates the location of the identified answer within the portion of the textual document, and
overlaying the meta information over the portion of the textual document within the line-of-vision of the camera.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing, by the computing system, the textual document to identify the answer to the interrogatory in the textual document comprises:
analyzing one or more metatags injected into the textual document to identify the answer in the textual document.
This is a non-provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-6, 8-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
All the claims are directed towards the statutory category of a machine/apparatus or process.
Claim 1 recites
“1. A method for generating a response to an interrogatory about a document, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, a document;
preprocessing, by a natural language processor associated with the computing system, the document, to generate a markup version of the document, wherein preprocessing the document comprises injecting, into the document, metatags that contextually identify portions of the document;
receiving, by the computing system from a user device, an interrogatory about content of the document;
analyzing, by the computing system, the interrogatory to determine a meaning of the interrogatory;
analyzing, by the computing system, the markup version to identify a portion of the metatags within the document responsive to the interrogatory;
generating, by the computing system, a response to the interrogatory comprising the portion of metatags in the document; and
transmitting, by the computing system, the response comprising the identified content to the user device.”
The independent Claims 1, 10 and 20 recite substantially the same concept but do so in the context of the method, the non-transitory computer-readable medium and the system.
The limitations recited in the independent claims as drafted cover a mental process. More specifically, the underlying abstract idea revolved around what happens once a human receives a document, the human could insert a metatag for each portion of the document. Next, when the human receives a question about the content of the document, the human could interpret a meaning of the question, analyze the document with the inserted metatag to identify which portion of the document responsive to the question, write down a response on a paper based on the identified portion and give the response to the user.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims recite the additional limitations of a computing system, a non-transitory computer readable medium and one or more processors. The additional element(s) or combination of elements such as a computing system, a non-transitory computer readable medium and one or more processors in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. There is no further improvement to the computing device other than response to a user’s question based on the inserted metatags of the document. The mere recitation of a computing system, a non-transitory computer readable medium and one or more processors and/or the like is akin of adding the word “apply it” and/or “use it” with a computer in conjunction with the abstract idea. The paragraphs [0012 and 0020] of the specification disclose “[0012] In another embodiment, a non-transitory computer readable medium is disclosed herein. The non-transitory computer readable medium includes one or more sequences of instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause to one or more processors to perform operations. The operations include receiving, from a client device, a content item comprising text-based content. The operations further include generating a mark-up version of the content item by identifying one or more characters in the text-based content and a relative location of the one or more characters in the content item. The operations further include receiving, from the client device, a natural-language message related to the content item. The operations further include identifying an interrogatory in the natural-language message. The operations further include analyzing the mark-up version of the content item to identify an answer to the interrogatory. The operations further include notifying the client device of the identified answer, [0020] In another embodiments, a system is disclosed herein. The system includes a processor and a memory. The memory has programming instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor, performs one or more operations. The one or more operations include receiving, from a client device, a content item comprising text-based content. The one or more operations further include generating a mark-up version of the content item by identifying one or more characters in the text-based content and a relative location of the one or more characters in the content item. The one or more operations further include receiving, from the client device, an interrogatory related to the content item. The one or more operations further include analyzing the mark-up version of the content item to identify an answer to the interrogatory. The one or more operations further include notifying the client device of the identified answer.”
As filed in the specification, the computer is listed as a general-purpose computer and is mainly used as an application thereof. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer is noted as a general computer. 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 do not remedy the issues noted above. More specifically, claim 2 recites a mental process of listening to the question. There are no additional limitations presented. Claim 3 recites a mental process of reading the question on the paper. There are no additional limitations presented. Claim 4 recites a mental process of reading the response to the user or giving the response to the user. There are no additional limitations presented. Claim 5 recites a mental process of determining the response based on the identified metatags. There are no additional limitations presented. Claim 6 recites “wherein the computing system receives the interrogatory via a chat interface accessible by the user device.” Claim 6 recites a mental process of “receives the interrogatory”. The use of “a chat interface accessible by the user device” amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Claim 8 recites a mental process of classifying the portions of the document. Claim 8 recites “using a machine learning module”. The judicial exception of “classifying the portions of the document” is performed by “a machine learning module.” The machine learning module is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning module functions. Rather, the limitation only recites the outcome of “classifying the portions of the document”, and do not include any details about how the “classifying” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 9 recite mental processes of highlighting the portions of the documents and displaying the highlighted portions of the documents physically on paper. There are no additional limitations presented. Claim 12 recites mental processes of identifying one or more possible answers to the user’s question and giving a confidence score for each possible answer. There are no additional limitations presented. Claim 13 recites a mental process of selecting the answer with the highest confidence score. There are no additional limitations presented. Claim 14 recites mental process of generating a classification question if the confidence score below a threshold. Claim 14 recites “transmitting the classification question to the user device.” Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983; Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks. Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit); Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 15 recites mental processes of receiving a classification answer and naturally comprehend meaning, context and intent of the classification answer. Claim 16 recites mental processes of analyzing the document to identify an answer to a question, giving a confidence score to the answer and selecting the answer when the answer has the confidence score higher than a threshold. Claim 17 recites mental processes of listening to the question and writing down the question on the paper. Claim 18 recites mental processes of receiving the question on paper and reading the question. Claim 19 recites “wherein the computing system receives the interrogatory and one or more clarification answers via a chat interface accessible by the user device.” Claim 19 recites mental processes of receiving the interrogatory and the one more classification answers. The use of “a chat interface accessible by the user device” amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible
For at least the supra provided reasons, claims 1-6, 8-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-6, 9-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Homyack et al. (US 2015/0208139 A1) in view of Bostick et al. (US 2016/0196264 A1.)
With respect to Claim 1, Homyack et al. disclose
A method for generating a response to an interrogatory about a document, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, a document (Homyack et al. [0013 describes receiving caption file);
preprocessing, by a natural language processor associated with the computing system, the document, to generate a markup version of the document, wherein preprocessing the document comprises injecting, into the document, metatags that contextually identify portions of the document (Homyack et al. [0013] Generally, any word, such as a phrase, place and/or name may be metatagged. Specific keystrokes or other entry methods on the captioning device may produce the text code for specific words, (which translates to text on a display) and may also embed the metatag codes corresponding to the specific words into the text code. For example, the keystroke to produce the text "John Elway" may also embed the metatag for "John Elway" in the text code, [0015] Words, people, phrases, subject matter, concepts, related terms, references to other sources of similar terms, places, specific happenings in the captioned event, time block in the captioned event and so on, may be identified by the editing system which may insert the corresponding metatags, [0050] the data file may be a text file that does not include captioning information. In this embodiment, the data file may be later metatagged and/or captioned as discussed in operation 1020);
Homyack et al. fail to explicitly teach
receiving, by the computing system from a user device, an interrogatory about content of the document;
analyzing, by the computing system, the interrogatory to determine a meaning of the interrogatory;
analyzing, by the computing system, the markup version to identify a portion of the metatags within the document responsive to the interrogatory;
generating, by the computing system, a response to the interrogatory comprising the portion of metatags in the document; and
transmitting, by the computing system, the response comprising the identified content to the user device.
However, Bostick et al. teach
receiving, by the computing system from a user device, an interrogatory about content of the document (Bostick et al. [0093] The user can then ask a question such as “What is this text document about?”, “Is this document appropriate for sending to a customer?”, etc. Similarly, the query may be “What does this text document mean?”);
analyzing, by the computing system, the interrogatory to determine a meaning of the interrogatory (Bostick et al. [0066-0067] describes interpreting the user’s question);
analyzing, by the computing system, the markup version to identify a portion of the metatags within the document responsive to the interrogatory (Bostick et al. [0093-0095] describes analyzing the text document with the metatag to answer the user’s question, [0093] The user can then ask a question such as “What is this text document about?”, “Is this document appropriate for sending to a customer?”, etc. Similarly, the query may be “What does this text document mean?” The data query logic can then compare text in (or metatags from) the selected text document with a database that describes documents, in order to answer such questions);
generating, by the computing system, a response to the interrogatory comprising the portion of metatags in the document (Bostick et al. [0010, 0014 and 0089] describes generating a response to the user’s question); and
transmitting, by the computing system, the response comprising the identified content to the user device (Bostick et al. Fig. 1 elements 12 and 14 computer system server transmits the response to the external device(s).)
Homyack et al. and Bostick et al. are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in the Signal Processing algorithm and applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steps of metatagging as taught by Homyack et al., using teaching of comparing the metatags from the selected text document as taught by Bostick et al. for the benefit of answering the user question (Bostick et al. [0093-0095] describes analyzing the text document with the metatag to answer the user’s question, [0093] The user can then ask a question such as “What is this text document about?”, “Is this document appropriate for sending to a customer?”, etc. Similarly, the query may be “What does this text document mean?” The data query logic can then compare text in (or metatags from) the selected text document with a database that describes documents, in order to answer such questions.)
With respect to Claim 2, Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. teach
wherein receiving, by the computing system, the interrogatory related to the document comprises receiving a voice message comprising the interrogatory (Bostick et al. [0065] receive the user’s question via a microphone.)
With respect to Claim 3, Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. teach
wherein receiving, by the computing system, the interrogatory related to the document comprises receiving a text message comprising the interrogatory (Bostick et al. [0094] the user drawing on the user interface 408 (e.g., using his/her fingertip on a touch sensitive portion of the screen devoted to receiving free-form text that is converted into ASCII characters). The user can then ask a question such as “What is this figure depicting?”, “What does this graph tell us about current sales figures?”, etc.)
With respect to Claim 4, Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. teach
wherein generating, by the computing system, the response to the interrogatory based on the identified content in the document comprises generating a text message or audio message comprising the response (Bostick et al. Fig. 1 elements 12 and 14 computer system server transmits the response to the external device(s), [0055] Computer system/server 12 may also communicate with one or more external devices 14 such as a keyboard, a pointing device, a display 24.)
With respect to Claim 5, Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. teach
further comprising extracting, based on the identified metatags, an answer to the interrogatory (Bostick et al. [0093] The user can then ask a question such as “What is this text document about?”, “Is this document appropriate for sending to a customer?”, etc. Similarly, the query may be “What does this text document mean?” The data query logic can then compare text in (or metatags from) the selected text document with a database that describes documents, in order to answer such questions.)
With respect to Claim 6, Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. teach
wherein the computing system receives the interrogatory via a chat interface accessible by the user device (Bostick et al. Fig. 1 elements 12 and 14 computer system server transmits the response to the external device(s), [0055] Computer system/server 12 may also communicate with one or more external devices 14 such as a keyboard, a pointing device, a display 24.)
With respect to Claim 9, Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. teach
wherein transmitting the response further comprises:
modifying, by the computing system, the document by highlighting the portions of the document associated with the portion of the metatags (Homyack et al. [0114] The metatagged words in FIG. 9 are enclosed in boxes for illustrative and explanatory purposes only and may be distinguished from regular text (text without metatags) in a caption as a different color, highlighted, underlined, as a different font and so on); and
causing, by the computing system, display of the modified document with the highlighting (Homyack et al. [0116] In an alternative embodiment, a user may be able to search the text of the captioned event as the captioned event takes place. For example, the user may enter the search term "John Elway" into a handheld device while viewing the text of a football game that is currently being played. Caption 900, metatagged text boxes 910, 920, 930 or any combination thereof, may be returned in the search results. Box 910 may be relevant to the search because the user searched the text input "John Elway," while box 920 may be relevant because John Elway may have participated in the touchdown play. Similar to box 920, box 930 also may be relevant as John Elway may have participated in the second quarter. In another example of this embodiment, the user may also search the text for events such as "touchdown in second quarter." In this example, the returned search results may be similar to the previous example. Thus, a user may retrieve captioning data as part of a search. Further, by selecting the captioning data result, the user may retrieve the caption data from the point at which the metatagged term occurs onward either as a streaming output or all at once (for example, as a text file). Alternatively, the user may retrieve the entirety of the caption file either with or without the metatagged term highlighted or otherwise emphasized.)
With respect to Claim 10, claim 10 recites similar features as claim 1, thus claim 10 is rejected as the same ground as claim 1.
With respect to Claim 20, claim 20 recites similar features as claim 1, thus claim 20 is rejected as the same ground as claim 1.
11. Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Homyack et al. (US 2015/0208139 A1) in view of Bostick et al. (US 2016/0196264 A1) and Pawlik et al. (US 2016/0277476 A1.)
With respect to Claim 7, Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. teach all the limitations of Claim 1 upon which Claim 7 depends. Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. fail to explicitly teach
further comprising:
capturing, by the computing system, an image of a quick response (QR) code via a camera of the user device;
extracting, by the computing system, a uniform resource locator (URL) associated with the QR code from the captured image; and
retrieving, by the computing system, the document from a server using the URL.
However, Pawlik et al. teach
further comprising:
capturing, by the computing system, an image of a quick response (QR) code via a camera of the user device (Pawlik et al. [0002] a user captures an image of a printed QR code, [0004] smartphone include digital cameras);
extracting, by the computing system, a uniform resource locator (URL) associated with the QR code from the captured image (Pawlik et al. [0002] the smartphone analyzes the QR code to extract a web address (URL)); and
retrieving, by the computing system, the document from a server using the URL (Pawlik et al. [0002] transmits the web address to an internet-based web server that retrieves content associated with the web address (typically in hypertext markup language or html) and transmits the retrieved content to the smartphone where it is displayed in a web browser. An example of content is a textbook or magazine wherein additional information pertaining to the printed subject matter is accessible via a URL encoded as a barcode or QR code.)
Homyack et al., Bostick et al. and Pawlik et al. are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in the Signal Processing algorithm and applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steps of metatagging as taught by Homyack et al., using teaching of comparing the metatags from the selected text document as taught by Bostick et al. for the benefit of answering the user question, using teaching of the QR as taught by Pawlik et al. for the benefit of retrieving the textbook or magazine (Pawlik et al. [0002] transmits the web address to an internet-based web server that retrieves content associated with the web address (typically in hypertext markup language or html) and transmits the retrieved content to the smartphone where it is displayed in a web browser. An example of content is a textbook or magazine wherein additional information pertaining to the printed subject matter is accessible via a URL encoded as a barcode or QR code.)
With respect to Claim 11, claim 11 recites similar features as claim 7, thus claim 11 is rejected as the same ground as claim 7.
12. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Homyack et al. (US 2015/0208139 A1) in view of Bostick et al. (US 2016/0196264 A1) and Sengupta (US 9,946,924 B2.)
With respect to Claim 8, Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. teach all the limitations of Claim 1 upon which Claim 8 depends. Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. fail to explicitly teach
wherein the preprocessing further comprises classifying the portions of the document using a machine learning module.
However, Sengupta teaches
wherein the preprocessing further comprises classifying the portions of the document using a machine learning module (Sengupta et al. Claim 1: divide the document into the major sections according to the hierarchical structure; access a machine learning model including a plurality of classifiers configured to classify portions of the document, each of the plurality of classifiers for a respective level of the multiple levels of the hierarchical structure; classify, with the processor, each of the major sections of the document by using a first classifier included in the plurality of classifiers, and map the major sections to the key elements; search, with the processor, one major section that is mapped to one key element.)
Homyack et al., Bostick et al. and Sengupta are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in the Signal Processing algorithm and applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steps of metatagging as taught by Homyack et al., using teaching of comparing the metatags from the selected text document as taught by Bostick et al. for the benefit of answering the user question, using teaching of classifier as taught by Sengupta for the benefit of classifying portions of the document and mapping classified portions with the key elements (Sengupta et al. Claim 1: divide the document into the major sections according to the hierarchical structure; access a machine learning model including a plurality of classifiers configured to classify portions of the document, each of the plurality of classifiers for a respective level of the multiple levels of the hierarchical structure; classify, with the processor, each of the major sections of the document by using a first classifier included in the plurality of classifiers, and map the major sections to the key elements; search, with the processor, one major section that is mapped to one key element.)
13. Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Homyack et al. (US 2015/0208139 A1) in view of Bostick et al. (US 2016/0196264 A1) and Adderly et al. (US 2016/0140858 A1.)
With respect to Claim 12, Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. teach all the limitations of Claim 10 upon which Claim 12 depends. Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. fail to explicitly teach
wherein analyzing, by the computing system, the markup version to identify content responsive to the interrogatory, comprises:
identifying one or more possible answers to the interrogatory; and
generating a confidence score for each possible answer of the one or more possible answers.
However, Adderly et al. teach
wherein analyzing, by the computing system, the markup version to identify content responsive to the interrogatory, comprises:
identifying one or more possible answers to the interrogatory (Adderly et al. [0065] Operating on such content, the QA system generates answers for input questions using a plurality of intensive analysis mechanisms); and
generating a confidence score for each possible answer of the one or more possible answers (Adderly et al. [0065] Operating on such content, the QA system generates answers for input questions using a plurality of intensive analysis mechanisms which evaluate the content to identify the most probable answers, i.e. candidate answers, for the input question. The most probable answers are output as a ranked listing of candidate answers ranked according to their relative scores or confidence measures calculated during evaluation of the candidate answers, as a single final answer having a highest ranking score or confidence measure, or which is a best match to the input question, or a combination of ranked listing and final answer.)
Homyack et al., Bostick et al. and Adderly et al. are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in the Signal Processing algorithm and applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steps of metatagging as taught by Homyack et al., using teaching of comparing the metatags from the selected text document as taught by Bostick et al. for the benefit of answering the user question, using teaching of generating a list of candidate answers with their relative scores as taught by Adderly et al. for the benefit of ranking the list and selecting a single final answer having a highest ranking score (Adderly et al. [0065] Operating on such content, the QA system generates answers for input questions using a plurality of intensive analysis mechanisms which evaluate the content to identify the most probable answers, i.e. candidate answers, for the input question. The most probable answers are output as a ranked listing of candidate answers ranked according to their relative scores or confidence measures calculated during evaluation of the candidate answers, as a single final answer having a highest ranking score or confidence measure, or which is a best match to the input question, or a combination of ranked listing and final answer.)
With respect Claim 13, Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. and Adderly et al. teach
wherein the analyzing, by the computing system, the markup version to identify content responsive to the interrogatory, further comprises:
identifying a possible answer that is associated with a highest confidence score (Adderly et al. [0065] Operating on such content, the QA system generates answers for input questions using a plurality of intensive analysis mechanisms which evaluate the content to identify the most probable answers, i.e. candidate answers, for the input question. The most probable answers are output as a ranked listing of candidate answers ranked according to their relative scores or confidence measures calculated during evaluation of the candidate answers, as a single final answer having a highest ranking score or confidence measure, or which is a best match to the input question, or a combination of ranked listing and final answer); and
setting the possible answer associated with the highest confidence score as the answer to the interrogatory (Adderly et al. [0065] Operating on such content, the QA system generates answers for input questions using a plurality of intensive analysis mechanisms which evaluate the content to identify the most probable answers, i.e. candidate answers, for the input question. The most probable answers are output as a ranked listing of candidate answers ranked according to their relative scores or confidence measures calculated during evaluation of the candidate answers, as a single final answer having a highest ranking score or confidence measure, or which is a best match to the input question, or a combination of ranked listing and final answer.)
14. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Homyack et al. (US 2015/0208139 A1) in view of Bostick et al. (US 2016/0196264 A1), Adderly et al. (US 2016/0140858 A1) and Dispensa et al. (US 2017/0329872 A1.)
With respect to Claim 14, Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. and Adderly et al. teach all the limitations of Claim 12 upon which Claim 14 depends. Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. and Adderly et al. fail to explicitly teach
wherein the analyzing, by the computing system, the markup version to identify content responsive to the interrogatory, further comprises:
determining that the confidence score for each possible answer is below a threshold confidence score;
based on the determining, generating a clarification question seeking clarification of the identified interrogatory; and
transmitting the clarification question to the user device.
However, Dispensa et al. teach
wherein the analyzing, by the computing system, the markup version to identify content responsive to the interrogatory, further comprises:
determining that the confidence score for each possible answer is below a threshold confidence score (Dispensa et al. [0092] FIG. 10 shows a webpage that includes a result to a query of a structured dataset, in which the highest-ranking result has a confidence score that does not exceeds a threshold. For example, the highest-ranking result 1020 to the query 1010 only has a confidence of 65%, which may be below the confidence score threshold of 80%);
based on the determining, generating a clarification question seeking clarification of the identified interrogatory (Dispensa et al. [0093] Because the result 1020 has a confidence score that is below the threshold, the computing system may cause the result page to present suggested questions 1030a-b along with the result. The computing system may also present a separate list of suggested questions 1040 and a list of questions by the user's team 1050, but those questions may not be in line with the result, may not include a confidence score for each question (and be ordered according to the confidence score), may not include an ability to “save” a question (e.g., along with its responsive single answer) by selecting a user interface element that is in the shape of a star, and may not be user-expandable by selecting the question (e.g., the text of the question or the arrows to the right of the “star” user interface element); and
transmitting the clarification question to the user device (Dispensa et al. Fig. 1 elements 102, 104, 106, 108, [0053] the computing system 108 performs as a result of a user entering a query.)
Homyack et al., Bostick et al., Adderly et al. and Dispensa et al. are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in the Signal Processing algorithm and applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steps of metatagging as taught by Homyack et al., using teaching of comparing the metatags from the selected text document as taught by Bostick et al. for the benefit of answering the user question, using teaching of generating a list of candidate answers with their relative scores as taught by Adderly et al. for the benefit of ranking the list and selecting a single final answer having a highest ranking score, using teaching of a list of suggested questions as taught by Dispensa et al. for the benefit of presenting of the list of suggested questions to a user if the highest-ranking result has a confidence score does not exceed a threshold (Dispensa et al. [0093] Because the result 1020 has a confidence score that is below the threshold, the computing system may cause the result page to present suggested questions 1030a-b along with the result. The computing system may also present a separate list of suggested questions 1040 and a list of questions by the user's team 1050, but those questions may not be in line with the result, may not include a confidence score for each question (and be ordered according to the confidence score), may not include an ability to “save” a question (e.g., along with its responsive single answer) by selecting a user interface element that is in the shape of a star, and may not be user-expandable by selecting the question (e.g., the text of the question or the arrows to the right of the “star” user interface element.)
15. Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Homyack et al. (US 2015/0208139 A1) in view of Bostick et al. (US 2016/0196264 A1) and Dispensa et al. (US 2017/0329872 A1.)
With respect to Claim 15, Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. teach all the limitations of Clam 10 upon which Claim 15 depends. Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. fail to explicitly teach
wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving, by the computing system from the user device, a clarification answer from the user device; and
parsing, by the computing system, the clarification answer to identify a revised interrogatory contained therein.
However, Dispensa et al. teach
wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving, by the computing system from the user device, a clarification answer from the user device (Dispensa et al. [0233] The method comprises receiving, by the computing system, an indication that user input at the computing device selected the particular query from the presented list of suggested queries); and
parsing, by the computing system, the clarification answer to identify a revised interrogatory contained therein (Dispensa et al. [0048] In response to selection of a suggested question, the client device’s web browser may navigate to a display of one or more results for the question, just as if the question is typed into the text entry box 210 and a user selected the “Go!’ button, [0093] Because the result 1020 has a confidence score that is below the threshold… The computing system may also present a separate list of suggested questions 1040 and a list of questions by the user's team 1050, but those questions may not be in line with the result, [0056] At box 406, the computing system determines any one or more entities in the query. In some examples, this involves sending the query (e.g., that which has been changed through natural language processing) to an entity determiner 112 (box 408) and receiving from the entity determiner 112 a list of entities in the query (box 409). The entity determiner 112 may analyze the query to determine whether the query includes words or phrases that are identified as entities. Entities may refer to persons, places, or things (e.g., nouns from a list of pre-determined nouns).
Homyack et al., Bostick et al. and Dispensa et al. are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in the Signal Processing algorithm and applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steps of metatagging as taught by Homyack et al., using teaching of comparing the metatags from the selected text document as taught by Bostick et al. for the benefit of answering the user question, using teaching of receiving the selection as taught by Dispensa et al. for the benefit of analyzing the user’s answer (Dispensa et al. [0048] In response to selection of a suggested question, the client device’s web browser may navigate to a display of one or more results for the question, just as if the question is typed into the text entry box 210 and a user selected the “Go!’ button, [0093] Because the result 1020 has a confidence score that is below the threshold… The computing system may also present a separate list of suggested questions 1040 and a list of questions by the user's team 1050, but those questions may not be in line with the result, [0056] At box 406, the computing system determines any one or more entities in the query. In some examples, this involves sending the query (e.g., that which has been changed through natural language processing) to an entity determiner 112 (box 408) and receiving from the entity determiner 112 a list of entities in the query (box 409). The entity determiner 112 may analyze the query to determine whether the query includes words or phrases that are identified as entities. Entities may refer to persons, places, or things (e.g., nouns from a list of pre-determined nouns).
With respect to Claim 16, Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. and Dispensa et al. teach
wherein the operations further comprise:
analyzing, by the computing system, the document to identify a revised answer to the revised interrogatory (Dispensa [0084] At box 810, the computing system may determine whether there is a result to the query of the dataset (for the highest-ranked structured dataset in this example). In some examples, the structured query engine 121 may execute the database query on the highest-ranked dataset 121, and determine whether the database query returns a result);
generating, by the computing system, a second confidence score for the revised answer (Dispensa et al. [0085] If there is a result to the query, the computing system may determine whether a confidence score of the result exceeds a threshold (box 811). If so, the computing system may provide the result for display by the computing device (box 812));
determining, by the computing system, that the second confidence score for the revised answer is at least greater than a threshold confidence score (Dispensa et al. [0085] If there is a result to the query, the computing system may determine whether a confidence score of the result exceeds a threshold (box 811). If so, the computing system may provide the result for display by the computing device (box 812)); and
setting, by the computing system, the revised answer as the answer to the interrogatory (Dispensa et al. [0085] If there is a result to the query, the computing system may determine whether a confidence score of the result exceeds a threshold (box 811). If so, the computing system may provide the result for display by the computing device (box 812), [0233] The method comprises identifying, by the computing system, one or more results the particular query. The method comprises providing, by the computing system, the one or more results to the particular query for receipt and presentation by the computing device.)
With respect to Claim 19, Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. teach all the limitations of Claim 10 upon which claim 19 depends. Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. fail to explicitly teach
wherein the computing system receives the interrogatory and one or more clarification answers via a chat interface accessible by the user device.
However, Dispensa et al. teach
wherein the computing system receives the interrogatory and one or more clarification answers via a chat interface accessible by the user device (Dispensa et al. [0048] In response to selection of a suggested question, the client device’s web browser may navigate to a display of one or more results for the question, just as if the question is typed into the text entry box 210 and a user selected the “Go!’ button, [0093] Because the result 1020 has a confidence score that is below the threshold… The computing system may also present a separate list of suggested questions 1040 and a list of questions by the user's team 1050, but those questions may not be in line with the result, [0166] A voice recognition service 3072 may receive voice communication data recorded with the mobile computing device's microphone 3022, and translate the voice communication into corresponding textual data.)
Homyack et al., Bostick et al. and Dispensa et al. are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in the Signal Processing algorithm and applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steps of metatagging as taught by Homyack et al., using teaching of comparing the metatags from the selected text document as taught by Bostick et al. for the benefit of answering the user question, using teaching of display and microphone as taught by Dispensa et al. for the benefit of enabling the user communicate with the user device (Dispensa et al. [0048] In response to selection of a suggested question, the client device’s web browser may navigate to a display of one or more results for the question, just as if the question is typed into the text entry box 210 and a user selected the “Go!’ button, [0093] Because the result 1020 has a confidence score that is below the threshold… The computing system may also present a separate list of suggested questions 1040 and a list of questions by the user's team 1050, but those questions may not be in line with the result, [0166] A voice recognition service 3072 may receive voice communication data recorded with the mobile computing device's microphone 3022, and translate the voice communication into corresponding textual data.)
16. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Homyack et al. (US 2015/0208139 A1) in view of Bostick et al. (US 2016/0196264 A1) and Manabe et al. (US 2006/0173682 A1.)
With respect to Claim 17, Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. teach all the limitations of claim 10 upon which claim 17 depends. Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. fail to explicitly teach
wherein receiving, by the computing system from the user device, the interrogatory related to the document comprises:
receiving a voice message comprising the interrogatory; and
converting the voice message to text using natural language processing techniques.
However, Manabe et al. teach
wherein receiving, by the computing system from the user device, the interrogatory related to the document comprises:
receiving a voice message comprising the interrogatory (Manabe et al. [0027] FIG. 1 is a block diagram depicting an information retrieval system in accordance with a first embodiment of the present invention. The information retrieval system shown in FIG. 1 is provided as a system for speech-recognizing a spoken question from a user to convert the speech-recognized question to text information retrievaling an answer to a question based on the converted text information; and providing a result of the search to the user, Claim 11. An information retrieval system, comprising: a speech recognizer configured to make speech recognition for a spoken question to generate first text information); and
converting the voice message to text using natural language processing techniques (Manabe et al. [0027] FIG. 1 is a block diagram depicting an information retrieval system in accordance with a first embodiment of the present invention. The information retrieval system shown in FIG. 1 is provided as a system for speech-recognizing a spoken question from a user to convert the speech-recognized question to text information retrievaling an answer to a question based on the converted text information; and providing a result of the search to the user.)
Homyack et al., Bostick et al. and Manabe et al. are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in the Signal Processing algorithm and applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steps of metatagging as taught by Homyack et al., using teaching of comparing the metatags from the selected text document as taught by Bostick et al. for the benefit of answering the user question, using teaching of the speech recognizer as taught by Manabe et al. for the benefit of retrievaling an answer to a question based on the converted text information and providing a result of the search to the user (Manabe et al. [0027] FIG. 1 is a block diagram depicting an information retrieval system in accordance with a first embodiment of the present invention. The information retrieval system shown in FIG. 1 is provided as a system for speech-recognizing a spoken question from a user to convert the speech-recognized question to text information retrievaling an answer to a question based on the converted text information; and providing a result of the search to the user, Claim 11. An information retrieval system, comprising: a speech recognizer configured to make speech recognition for a spoken question to generate first text information.)
17. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Homyack et al. (US 2015/0208139 A1) in view of Bostick et al. (US 2016/0196264 A1) and Hubbard et al. (US 2017/0316513 A1.)
With respect to Claim 18, Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. teach all the limitations of claim 10 upon which claim 18 depends. Homyack et al. in view of Bostick et al. fail to explicitly teach
wherein receiving, by the computing system from the user device, the interrogatory related to the document comprises:
receiving a text message comprising the interrogatory; and
converting the text message to a voice message using natural language processing techniques.
However, Hubbard et al. teach
wherein receiving, by the computing system from the user device, the interrogatory related to the document comprises:
receiving a text message comprising the interrogatory (Hubbard [0079 and 0084] describes the user has typed the question into the text box); and
converting the text message to a voice message using natural language processing techniques (Hubbard et al. [0067] The user interface 134 is configured to communicate with a user, e.g., communicate a natural language question to a user, and/or receive user input from a user. The received user input may be in the form of a natural language statement. Examples of user interfaces 134 include voice and graphic (including text) user interfaces. Voice user interfaces includes a speech synthesizer/analyzer that transforms questions and statement between text and audio formats.)
Homyack et al., Bostick et al. and Hubbard et al. are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in the Signal Processing algorithm and applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steps of metatagging as taught by Homyack et al., using teaching of comparing the metatags from the selected text document as taught by Bostick et al. for the benefit of answering the user question, using the speech synthesizer as taught by Hubbard et al. for the benefit of transforming questions from text to audio format (Hubbard et al. [0067] The user interface 134 is configured to communicate with a user, e.g., communicate a natural language question to a user, and/or receive user input from a user. The received user input may be in the form of a natural language statement. Examples of user interfaces 134 include voice and graphic (including text) user interfaces. Voice user interfaces includes a speech synthesizer/analyzer that transforms questions and statement between text and audio formats.)
Conclusion
18. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See PTO-892.
a. Yeung et al. (US 2020/0236278 A1.) In this reference, Yeung et al. disclosed a method and a system for providing real-time capture, and distribution of panoramic virtual reality (VR) content of a live event.
b. Le Chevalier et al. (US 2018/0322600 A1.) In this reference, Le Chevalier et al. disclosed a method for receiving a document, identifying the position of each character in the document and generating a markup version of the document
c. Baek (US 2015/0066511 A1.) In this reference, Baek disclosed a method for processing an image in an electronic device.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THUYKHANH LE whose telephone number is (571)272-6429. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am-5pm.
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, Andrew C. Flanders can be reached on (571) 272-7516. 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.
/THUYKHANH LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights