Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
The office action is being sent in response to Applicant’s communication received on 1/17/2025 for the application number 19026450. The office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following placed of record in the file: Specification, Abstract, Oath/Declaration and claims.
Status of the claims
Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure submitted on 10/3/2025 was filed before the mailing data of the first office action. The /submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
This application claims the benefit and priority of Chinese Application No. 202410295105.8, filed on March 14, 2024
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims 1-8 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Turning to the written description in the specification, the corresponding structure for the information determination unit, an auxiliary information acquisition unit, data extraction subunit, a keyword extraction subunit, a response generation unit, has is specifically a cpu as disclosed in Fig 16.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 recites An information processing apparatus, comprising: (a) a determination unit, configured to determine that auxiliary information for input data is required, in a case where a first keyword extracted from the input data is not comprised in a first subset corresponding to the first keyword in a predetermined data set; (b) and an auxiliary information acquisition unit, configured to, in a case where the determination unit determines that the auxiliary information is required,extract, from the first subset, multiple pieces of data corresponding to the first keyword, and (c) select, based on the input data, one or more pieces of data from the extracted multiple pieces of data, as the auxiliary information for generating response data.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are
presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
A human can determine a keyword from the asked query, question, input data and based on whether the keyword is stored in the dictionary, determine additional information is needed.
A person can retrieve multiple pieces of data based on the question or input
A person can select a relevant data based on plural pieces of data
Additional elements are determination unit, auxiliary information acquisition unit and information processing apparatus.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least system. Thus, the claim recites an apparatus, hence a machine , which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a
judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception
when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of limitations (a)-(c) that those
elements fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts
performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion . See MPEP
2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Limitations (a)-(c) recites a mental steps since human can determine a keyword from the input question and based on whether that keyword is stored in a dictionary, decide to obtain more information about the input question. Human can retrieve multiple pieces of information which is relevant to input question and select a particular information. Hence, these steps can be performed by a human, using “observation, evaluation, judgment, [and] opinion,” because they involve making determinations and identifications, which are mental tasks humans routinely do, and thus can practically be performed in the human mind, In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Therefore, these limitations are considered together as an abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole
integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the
claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether
there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating
those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole
integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional elements recited are determination unit, auxiliary information acquisition unit and information processing apparatus and as described above these are general processors. These additional elements provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, analysis analogous to claim 1, are applicable. Claim 10 recited computer readable medium which is also a generic processor.
Claims 2-4 recites using the LLM to generate keyword and title and retrieve multiple pieces of information which human can perform in their mind. Hence the LLM is merely used to perform an abstract idea. Similar analysis as in claim 1 are applicable.
Claims 5-6 recites the same steps but based on user feedback, human can do this mentally by appending the search results based on another user feedback.
Claim 7- 8 recites the question is related to product, human can receive and answer questions based on a product.
Claim 8 recites feedback comprising - feedback information on the response data from a first user who inputs the input data; feedback information on the auxiliary information from the first user; feedback information on respective response data from one or more second users different from the first user; and feedback information on respective auxiliary information from the one or more second users. This is a mental step since human can receive all these types of feedback from another human.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han (US 20250131207)
Regarding claim 1, Han teaches a information processing apparatus, comprising: a determination unit, configured to determine that auxiliary information for input data is required ( no overlap between the keywords and user profile data, Para 0045-0050, Fig 2-3) , in a case where a first keyword extracted from the input data is not comprised in a first subset corresponding to the first keyword in a predetermined data set and an auxiliary information acquisition unit, configured to, in a case where the determination unit determines that the auxiliary information is required, extract, from the first subset, multiple pieces of data corresponding to the first keyword ( When there is no overlap, the first index data set may be searched based on the semantic features of the input request, and the search result data may be used as the second data, Para 0049) one or more pieces of data from the extracted multiple pieces of data, as the auxiliary information for generating response data ( each piece of data in the second data may also include the data information of the corresponding piece of data in the target data source. Still taking each piece of data in the target data source as a document as an example, it may include the corresponding document or include a series of keywords and/or semantic features respectively contained in the corresponding document., Para 0049-0050)
Regarding claim 9, rejections analogous to claim 1 are applicable.
Regarding claim 10, Han teaches computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the information processing method according to claim 9.( Para 0006)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
And
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determination.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 20250131207) and further in view of Zhou (US 20240362093)
Regarding claim 2, Han as above in claim 1, does not teach , wherein the determination unit is further configured to generate a code based on the input data, and extract, from the code, the first keyword and a title corresponding to the first subset, wherein the predetermined data set comprises a plurality of subsets each corresponding to different titles
However, Zhou teaches wherein the determination unit is further configured to generate a code based on the input data, and extract, from the code, the first keyword and a title corresponding to the first subset (the user query may be processed by an LLM to identify one or more topics, subjects, keywords and/or entities referred to in the user query (either explicitly or implicitly), Para 0044) , wherein the predetermined data set comprises a plurality of subsets each corresponding to different titles ( Based on the identified topics, subjects, keywords and/or entities referred to in the user query, the system may select one or more of the external applications to query. The selection may, for example, be based on matching one or more of the identified topics, subjects, keywords and/or entities referred to in the user query to metadata associated with each of the external applications, such as a description of the custom corpus associate with each external application. The external application may, for example, be selected based on a state of the client device; one or more further queries associated with the client device; and/or user data associated with a user of the client device., Para 0044; wherein based on the topic/subject subset of data from the dataset can be selected, Fig 2-3)
It would have been obvious to POSITA having the teachings of Han to further include the concept of Zhou before effective filing date so that based on the query can be processed based on a keyword information and LLM is able to better infer the keywords because LLM has more capability of understanding the context and synonyms
Regarding claim 3, Han modified by Zhou as above in claim 2, teaches , wherein the auxiliary information acquisition unit comprises: a data extraction subunit, configured to extract, from the first subset, multiple pieces of data corresponding to the first keyword ( data corresponding to keyword, Para 0049-0050, Fig 4, Han; Fig 2-3, Zhou) ; a prompt information generation subunit, configured to generate prompt information based on the input data ( prompting the LLM, Fig 4, Han; prompting LLM, Para 0050-0054, Zhou) ; and a selection subunit, configured to select, based on the prompt information, the one or more pieces of data as the auxiliary information from the multiple pieces of data extracted by the data extraction subunit ( custom corpus of the documents based on prompt, Fig 2, Para 0054)
Regarding claim 4, Han modified by Zhou as above in claim 3, teach wherein the auxiliary information acquisition unit further comprises a keyword extraction subunit configured to extract a second keyword from user feedback information (user feedback – user initiates the same query or gives a feedback, Para 0085, Han ) , and wherein the prompt information generation subunit is further configured to generate the prompt information based on the input data and matching results between the second keyword and each of the multiple pieces of data extracted by the data extraction subunit ( llm tries to achieve the goal, Para 0098-0103)
Regarding claim 5, Han as above in claim 4, teach wherein for each piece of data in the extracted multiple pieces of data, feedback information corresponding to the piece of data in the user feedback information is comprised in the prompt information in a case where the piece of data matches the second keyword, and wherein the user feedback information is not comprised in the prompt information in a case where none of the multiple pieces of data matches the second keyword ( same process repeats based on the feedback, Para 0098-0103)
Regarding claim 6, Han modified by Zhou as above in claim 4, further comprising a response generation unit, configured to: generate the response data based on the input data and the auxiliary information, in a case where the auxiliary information is required (Fig 2-4, Han; fig 3, Zhou) ; and generate the response data based on the input data, in a case where the auxiliary information is not required ( select the top known prompts, Fig 4, Han generate a response without the external database, Fig 3, Zhou)
Regarding claim 7, Han modified by Zhou as above in claim 4, teach , wherein the input data comprises at least one of: a product name, a service name, a product category, and a service category, the second keyword comprises a product name and/or a service name, and each of the extracted multiple pieces of data comprises a product name and/or a service name ( product such as computer question, Para 0044, Han; product question or category, Para 0007, Zhou)
Regarding claim 8, Han as above in claim 4, teach , wherein the user feedback information comprises at least one of: feedback information on the response data from a first user who inputs the input data; feedback information on the auxiliary information from the first user; feedback information on respective response data from one or more second users different from the first user; and feedback information on respective auxiliary information from the one or more second users ( user satisfaction based on results, Para 0098-0104)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ghorbani (US 20210133268) teaches an information processing apparatus, comprising: a determination unit, configured to determine that auxiliary information for input data is required ( If the current listing is missing one or more extracted keywords, the merchant may be presented with an option (e.g., using the dialog 1510) to include the keywords in the listing., Para 0189, Fig 15A; if the merchant-submitted listing at optional step 1414 is a partial entry, such as a real-time entry (e.g., using an online form provided by the e-commerce platform 100), the description generator 356 may, based on the information in the partial entry, present one or more keywords that the merchant can select for inclusion in the listing., Para 0184; ) , in a case where a first keyword extracted from the input data is not comprised in a first subset corresponding to the first keyword in a predetermined data set ( current listing is missing one or more keyword, 1414 or the listing is a partial listing, Para 0184; dialog 1510 that may be presented to a merchant (e.g., when the merchant submits a new listing for an offering, in this example “Leather bag”). In this example, the dialog 1510 identifies keywords 1512 that have been associated with the offering category (in this example “handbags”), indicates that the keywords 1512 are not currently part of the listing for the merchant offering, and provides an option 1514 to add (or not add) the keywords 1512 into the listing. In some examples, the dialog 1510 may provide an option (e.g., using checkboxes) for the merchant to select which of the keywords 1512 to include., Para 0183) ; and an auxiliary information acquisition unit, configured to, in a case where the determination unit determines that the auxiliary information is required, extract, from the first subset, multiple pieces of data corresponding to the first keyword ( the description generator 356 may access the stored association to generate recommended keywords as discussed above., Fig 15A-B) , and select, based on the input data, one or more pieces of data from the extracted multiple pieces of data, as the auxiliary information for generating response data ( related keywords, Para 0190, Fig 14)
Cameron (US 12579374) teaches keywords and topics
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richa Sonifrank whose telephone number is (571)272-5357. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 7AM - 5:30PM.
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, Phan Hai can be reached at (571)272-6338. 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.
/Richa Sonifrank/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights