Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,381. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application define an invention that is merely an obvious variation of the invention claimed in the patent for the following reasons. Comparing the claims, such as claims 1 of the present application and claim 1of the patent, it is clear that all the elements of the claim 1 are found in claim 1 of the patent. The difference is claim 1 of the patent comprise the additional elements including, wherein the interpret-statement includes a pattern expression, and wherein the interpret-statement includes an action statement, that are not included in claim 1, therefore represents a species of the generic invention of the application claim. Since it has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species, claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the patent.
Claims 2-20 correspond to claims 2-20 of the patent.
19026132
12322381
1.A method of building a natural language understanding application, the method including: generating at least one electronic record containing programming code, wherein the programming code includes an interpret-block, wherein the interpret-block includes an interpret-statement; the programming code being executable by a processor such that execution by the processor causes the processor to create a parse and an interpretation of a sequence of input tokens
1.A method of building a natural language understanding application, the method including: generating at least one electronic record containing programming code, wherein the programming code includes an interpret-block, wherein the interpret-block includes an interpret-statement, wherein the interpret-statement includes a pattern expression, and wherein the interpret-statement includes an action statement; the programming code being executable by a processor such that execution by the processor causes the processor to create a parse and an interpretation of a sequence of input tokens.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to
fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kendall et al. (US 5,995,918).
As to claim 1, Kendall teaches a method of building a natural language understanding application, the method including: generating at least one electronic record containing programming code, wherein the programming code (104/122) includes an interpret-block (202/204), wherein the interpret-block includes an interpret-statement 206; the programming code being executable by a processor such that execution by the processor causes the processor to create a parse and an interpretation of a sequence of input tokens (Figs.1-2, 5-8; Col.1, lines 5-15, Col.2, line 1-Col.3, line 10, Col.5, line 20-Col.8, line 9)
PNG
media_image1.png
572
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Kendall teaches wherein the interpret-statement includes a pattern expression and an action statement (Col.2, line 43-Col.3, line 12; Fig.5).
As to claim 3, Kendall teaches wherein the pattern expression includes pattern tokens (Abstract; Fig.9).
As to claims 6-7 wherein at least one pattern token refers to a second interpret-block, wherein the second interpret-block has a return variable (Figs.2-6, Col.7, line 20-Col.8, line 56).
As to claim 8, Kendall teaches wherein an extended pattern token table refers to a table of token expressions, and each row in the table has a fixed returned return value, and has no associated action statement (Fig.5).
As to claim 9, Kendall teaches wherein the parse is a parse tree, and represents the interpret-block and interpret-statement data structures (Fig.3).
Regarding claims 10-11, 13-18 and 20, the corresponding instructions and system comprising the steps similar to the claims addressed above are analogous, therefore rejected as being anticipated by Kendall et al. for the foregoing reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 12 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 4-5, 12 and 19 are allowable because Kendal doesn’t teach wherein the pattern tokens are associated with weights and wherein the weights are automatically normalized.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jackson et al. “Method And System For Building And Running Natural Language Understanding Systems” (US 6629066) (Figs.2-7).
Lundberg et al. (US 2013/0268260) “SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR SEMIAUTOMATIC GENERATION AND TUNING OF NATURAL LANGUAGE INTERACTION APPLICATIONS” (Figs.5-10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL DEMELASH ABEBE whose telephone number is (571)272-7615. The examiner can normally be reached monday-friday 7-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL ABEBE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
