DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,204,850. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Galitsky (US 2020/0117709 A1) discloses a method, comprising:
obtaining a set of sentences associated with a short text, each of the set of sentences containing all of words in the short text (relevant sentences are found on the web, associated with an utterance which includes text fragments, using entities within the fragments as a basis to query content sources, para. 0216-0217);
determining a set of syntactic features associated with the set of sentences, each of the set of syntactic features indicating at least one of a constituency relation or a dependency relation of the corresponding sentence (a syntactic parse tree is created for each obtained result, para. 0230), but differs from claims 1-20 in that it does not teach or fairly suggest:
determining a semantic structure of the short text based on the set of syntactic features, the semantic structure comprising a constituent for each of the words.
Canim et al. (US 2019/0236469 A1) teach semantically parsing an utterance to produce a logical form of a request.
Hong (US 2022/0180056 A1) teaches classifying each word according to constituent tags (para. 0060).
Van Dyke et al. (US 11,170,154 B1) teach a constituency parser and dependency parser.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stella L Woo whose telephone number is (571)272-7512. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
STELLA L. WOO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2693
/Stella L. Woo/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693