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 .
Claims 1 – 13 are pending.
Oath/Declaration
See Informational Notice to Applicant mailed on 12 March 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Informational Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 13 February 2025 indicated an English translation of the foreign reference was included. However, the included copy of the reference was missing an English translation other than a summary paragraph. Therefore, the foreign reference cannot be considered until an English translation is provided. Being the only reference on the IDS, it is not being considered at this time. Filing of a new IDS including the English translation of any foreign references provided will be considered.
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.
Claims 1 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a generation unit that generates a question based on a search query used for searching for web content; a reception unit that receives an answer by a user to the question generated by the generation unit; and a provision unit that provides information including the question generated by the generation unit and the answer received by the reception unit. Generating a question, receiving an answer by a user to the question generated, and providing information including the question generated and the answer received are actions that may be performed solely in the human mind, and, therefore, are directed to a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the elements of the claim language generally link the mental process to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Elements such as a generation unit, a reception unit, and provision unit for use in searching for web content is the mere field of use or technological environment in which the mental process of generating a question, receiving an answer and providing the question and answer is being linked or used within.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as the generation unit, reception unit and provision unit are not limited to hardware embodiments, however, should they be interpreted to be hardware embodiments within the apparatus, including the apparatus itself, they would be mere implementation of the abstract idea on a computer to merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected using similar rationale and interpretation of the claimed elements. Claim 13 further recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium; however, this appears to be merely the use of generic computing components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the medium does not implement the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 2 – 11 recite limitations to further clarify the processes for generation of queries and receiving of answers, which do not implement the abstract idea into a practical application as mere linking of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see 2106.05(h). Said dependent claims further recite additional units that are sub-units of the prior disclosed units, which do not implement the abstract idea into a practical application and are directed to either mere linking of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see 2106.05(h), and/or merely the use of generic computing components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Similarly, it does not amount to significantly more for similar reasoning. Further dependent claims introduce the use of generative AI for generating of the question and receiving of the answer and providing of the question/answer thereafter, however, this does not implement the abstract idea into a practical application and is directed to the mere linking of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see 2106.05(h). Similarly, it does not amount to significantly more for similar reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1 – 7 and 10 – 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 12,518,226 issued to Pandey et al (hereinafter Pandey).
As to claim 1, Pandey discloses an information processing apparatus comprising:
a generation unit that generates a question based on a search query used for searching for web content (receiving user prompt including user intent and profile information as input into the generative AI (GAI) model to generate a question for the group, see Pandey: Col. 5 line 40 – Col. 6 line 15, see also Col. 4 line 34 – 41);
a reception unit that receives an answer by a user to the question generated by the generation unit (receive answers from users/experts of the group, see Pandey: Col. 6 lines 16 – 28 and , see also Col. 4 line 34 – 41); and
a provision unit that provides information including the question generated by the generation unit and the answer received by the reception unit (answer monitor tracks which questions have been answered, answers provided to the questions, and how much interactions the questions and answers have in the group, see Pandey: Col. 13 line 41 – Col. 14 line 7).
As to claim 2, Pandey discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the generation unit generates the question based on the search query and an attribute of a user of a terminal apparatus that has transmitted the search query (the questions are generated based on user goals/intent and user information determined from their profile, see Pandey: Col. 2 lines 37 – 50 and Col. 5 line 40 – Col. 6 line 15).
As to claim 3, Pandey discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the generation unit includes:
an estimation processing unit that estimates the attribute of the user of the terminal apparatus (user profile skills are tracked and used with the user entered intent/goals for generation of the question, see Pandey: Col. 5 line 40 – Col. 6 line 15); and
a generation processing unit that generates the question based on the search query and the attribute estimated by the estimation processing unit (the questions are generated based on user goals/intent and user information determined from their profile, see Pandey: Col. 2 lines 37 – 50 and Col. 5 line 40 – Col. 6 line 15).
As to claim 4, Pandey discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the search query includes information indicating a place and information indicating a purpose at the place (user prompt including user goal/intent and profile information includes user’s groups, and skills associated with the groups that questions may be generated for, see Pandey: Col. 3 line 64 – Col. 4 line 25, Col. 5 line 22 – Col. 6 line 12), and
the generation unit generates, as the question, a question including the information indicating the place and the information indicating the purpose at the place (the questions for a selected group are generated based on user goals/intent and user information determined from their profile, see Pandey: Col. 2 lines 37 – 50 and Col. 5 line 40 – Col. 6 line 15).
As to claim 5, Pandey discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the search query includes information indicating a place (user prompt including user goal/intent and profile information includes user’s groups, and skills associated with the groups that questions may be generated for, see Pandey: Col. 3 line 64 – Col. 4 line 25, Col. 5 line 22 – Col. 6 line 12), and the generation unit includes:
an estimation processing unit that estimates a purpose at the place (skills associated with the groups are determined and used in the generation of questions for the group, see Pandey: Col. 3 line 64 – Col. 4 line 25, Col. 5 line 22 – Col. 6 line 12); and
a generation processing unit that generates a question including the information indicating the place and information indicating the purpose estimated by the estimation processing unit (the questions for a selected group are generated based on user goals/intent and user information determined from their profile, see Pandey: Col. 2 lines 37 – 50 and Col. 5 line 40 – Col. 6 line 15).
As to claim 6, Pandey discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the generation unit generates a question to which an answer of a candidate for an answerer can be received, based on behavior history of the candidate for the answerer (identifying experts as candidates to answer the question based on the profile history and feedback on past answers, see Pandey: Col. 6 lines 16 – 28, and Col. 9 lines 26 – 34, and Col. 11 line 64 – Col. 12 line 8, and Col. 13 line 66 – Col. 14 line 7).
As to claim 7, Pandey discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the provision unit provides an answer to the question generated by the generation unit via a service for receiving an answer to a question (answer monitor tracks which questions have been answered, answers provided to the questions, and how much interactions the questions and answers have in the group, see Pandey: Col. 13 line 41 – Col. 14 line 7 and questions determined to be answered in a group indicate the prompt template used to create the question is relevant to the group, see Pandey: Col. 14 lines 8 – 32).
As to claim 10, Pandey discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the generation unit generates the question by generative AI (receiving user prompt including user intent and profile information as input into the generative AI (GAI) model to generate a question for the group, see Pandey: Col. 5 line 40 – Col. 6 line 15, see also Col. 4 line 34 – 41).
As to claim 11, Pandey discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the provision unit provides information indicating that the question is generated using the generative AI together with the question (receiving user prompt including user intent and profile information as input into the generative AI (GAI) model to generate a question for the group, see Pandey: Col. 5 line 40 – Col. 6 line 15, see also Col. 4 line 34 – 41, and questions determined to be answered in a group indicate the prompt template used to create the question is relevant to the group, see Pandey: Col. 14 lines 8 – 32).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected using similar rationale to the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0272091 issued to Baker (hereinafter Baker).
As to claim 8, Pandey discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1; however, Pandey does not explicitly disclose wherein the reception unit receives a search query in a search service of the web content, and the provision unit includes: a search processing unit that performs search processing according to the search query in the search service received by the reception unit based on the answer received by the reception unit; and a provision processing unit that provides a search result by the search processing unit.
Baker teaches wherein the reception unit receives a search query in a search service of the web content (after the first request is answered and returned by the generative AI system, a second follow-up request is generated, see Baker: Para. 0057 and 0061), and the provision unit includes:
a search processing unit that performs search processing according to the search query in the search service received by the reception unit based on the answer received by the reception unit (the second subsequent query is generated using the API to be processed by the generative AI system, see Baker: Para. 0057 and 0061); and
a provision processing unit that provides a search result by the search processing unit (a subsequent queries after the first are answered by the generative AI system, see Baker: Para. 0057 and 0061).
Baker and Pandey are analogous due to their disclosure of using generative AI to generate queries to receive answers to a user’s prompt.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Pandey’s use of generative AI to generate questions based on a user’s prompt including their intent/goals and profile information to be answered by another user with Baker’s use of generating subsequent queries by the generative AI for users to ask in order to automatically generate desired information for users with less software development experience and/or skill (Baker: Para. 0001).
As to claim 9, Pandey modified by Baker discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the search processing unit performs the search processing based on the answer received by the reception unit in a case where the search query received by the reception unit is a same as the search query used to generate the question (subsequent queries are generated based on the first query and answers, see Baker: Para. 0057 and 0061).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK E HERSHLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-6pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571) 270-1698. 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.
/MARK E HERSHLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164