DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The instant application having Application No. 19/044,092 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application, there are 3 independent claims and 17 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
The applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The applicant’s specification submitted is acceptable for examination purposes.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 21, 28-29 and 36 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21, 28-29 and 36 of U.S. Application No. 18/108,584. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims
Instant Application
App#: 18/108,584
21, 28-29 and 36
21. (New) A method for training a neural-semantic network for discourse assistance, comprising:
receiving a text pair that includes at least a first text sequence and a second text sequence;
receiving a neural-semantic network that is to be generalized;
constraint matching the first text sequence with the second text sequence using a plurality of constraints, wherein at least one of the plurality of constraints is based on a similarity between a pair of text sequences;
extracting a frame-slot of a matched sequence based on the constraint matching of the first text sequence with the second text sequence;
generalizing the neural-semantic network based on the generated frame-slot of the matched sequence; and
returning the neural-semantic network for use in an automated conversation generation system for the discourse assistance.
28. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the generated frame-slot comprises matching word senses between the first text sequence and the second text sequence.
29. (New) A device for training a neural-semantic network for discourse assistance, comprising:
at least one memory and at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory and the at least one processor are respectively configured to store and execute instructions for causing the device to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving a text pair that includes at least a first text sequence and a second text sequence;
receiving a neural-semantic network that is to be generalized;
constraint matching the first text sequence with the second text sequence using a plurality of constraints, wherein at least one of the plurality of constraints is based on a similarity between a pair of text sequences;
extracting an indication of a matched sequence based on the constraint matching of the first text sequence with the second text sequence;
generalizing the neural-semantic network based on the generated indication of the matched sequence; and
returning the neural-semantic network for use in an automated conversation generation system for the discourse assistance.
36. (New) The device of claim 29, wherein the at least one processor includes a graphics processing unit.
21. (New) A method for generalizing a parser for discourse assistance, comprising:
receiving a text pair that includes at least a first text sequence and a second text sequence;
receiving a parser that is to be generalized;
receiving at least one constraint that is associated with a manner of matching text;
constraint matching the first text sequence with the second text sequence using a plurality of constraints, wherein at least one of the plurality of the constraints is based on a similarity between a pair of text sequences;
extracting a frame-slot of a matched sequence based on the constraint matching of the first text sequence with the second text sequence;
generalizing the parser based on the generated frame-slot of the matched sequence; and
returning the parser for use in an automated conversation generation system for the discourse assistance.
28. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the generated frame-slot comprises matching word senses between the first text sequence and the second text sequence.
29. (New) A device for generalizing a semantically matched knowledge structure, comprising:
at least one memory and at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory and the at least one processor are respectively configured to store and execute instructions for causing the device to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving a first text sequence;
receiving at least one constraint that is associated with a manner of matching text;
constraint matching the first text sequence with a second text sequence based on the at least one constraint;
generating a matched text sequence based on the constraint matching of the first text sequence with the second text sequence;
generalizing the semantically matched knowledge structure based on the matched text sequence; and
returning the generalized semantically matched knowledge structure for use in an automated conversation generation system.
36. (New) The device of claim 29, wherein the at least one processor includes a graphics processing unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-40 are in condition for allowance.
For independent claims 21, 29 and 37, prior art, in current interpretation of the perceived language, assistance with query through matching of text and text sequencing like cited reference Ferrucci et al. (US 2013/0035930 A1) but does not teach extracting frame-slots of matched sequence with another sequence and then generalizing the parser and returning it for discourse assistance.
Conclusion
The Examiner requests, in response to this Office action, that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJITH M JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-1763. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: Flexible Hours.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Apu Mofiz can be reached on 571-272-4080. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AJITH JACOB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
1/24/2026
Prosecution Insights