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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 19/076,708 filed on 03/11/2025.
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claim 1 is independent claim.
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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 8 recites “A computing system comprising the computing platform”. The specification is silent as to whether the recited computing platform comprises at least a hardware component(s). Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited system can be interpreted as software per se. Software is not one of the four categories of invention. Software is not a series of steps or acts and thus is not a process. Software is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Software is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter. Therefore, claim 8 is non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9 recites “A computer program product comprising a computer-readable medium”. Such a “computer program product” is patentable if the medium on which the “computer program product” is stored is determined to patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner asserts that the medium set forth in claim 9 is not limited to non-transitory type of medium especially when the Applicant’s specification is silent regarding such computer-readable medium. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited medium can be interpreted as signal per se. As such, claim 9 is drawn to a form of energy. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention. Energy is not a series of steps or acts and thus is not a process. Energy is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Energy is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter. Therefore, claim 9 is non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for including both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be overcome by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claimed medium.
Claim 10 recites “A computer program…when run by a computer”. The Examiner interprets the limitation “when run by a computer” as an intended use for the computer program so the recited computer is not required. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited computer program can be interpreted as software per se. Software is not one of the four categories of invention. Software is not a series of steps or acts and thus is not a process. Software is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Software is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter. Therefore, claim 10 is non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the computing platform" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kepler et al. (WO 0062264 A2, hereinafter “Kepler”) in view of Du et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,847,166 B2, hereinafter “Du”).
Regarding claim 1, Kepler teaches a method to process search requests at a search platform, the search platform being communicatively coupled to a plurality of clients as well as, via a communication interface, to a database system (Kepler page 6 second paragraph), the method comprising, at the search platform:
in response to receiving a search request from one of the plurality of clients requesting one or more search results comprising at least two sets of data fields, namely a first set of at least one data field and a second set of at least one data field (Kepler page 3 fourth paragraph, i.e., “In this embodiment of the invention, a proxy server first receives an input search request having a plurality of fields from a user. Next, the proxy server creates a modified search request by extracting certain fields from the original search request”, the Examiner interprets the plurality of data fields from the input search request as the first set of the data fields, and the extracted certain fields by the proxy server as the second set of data fields), determining a number of search results corresponding to the search request comprising:
generating one or more values for the first set of data fields search-routing database is then searched for data responsive to the modified search request. If responsive data is found in the search-routing database, then one or more database identifiers associated with the responsive data are returned to the proxy server”);
determining, on the basis of the generated one or more values for the first set of data fields and by using the database system, one or more values for the second set of data fields (Kepler page 3 fourth paragraph, i.e., “Next, the original search request is routed to the database(s) identified by the one or more database identifiers. The database(s) are searched for data responsive to the original search request”);
assembling one or more search results comprising the generated one or more values for the first set of data fields and the determined one or more values for the second set of data fields (Kepler page 8 first paragraph, i.e., “As an example, with reference to FIGS. 4 and 6 A, if database 30 shown in FIG. 4 were searched for data responsive to search request 84 shown in FIG. 6A (after being identified as the relevant database by the database identifier in record 25 as detailed above), then database record 68 would be returned to the user who submitted the search request. There are numerous ways to return the results of a database search. For example, certain responsive records could be merged together or sorted according to a predefined ordering criteria, such as alphabetical order. A merging scheme that produces a unitary output from multiple, multi-database records furthers the transparency of the system to the user, and allows for encapsulation of data, providing broad flexibility in data management”);
returning the at least one search result to the client (Kepler page 8 first paragraph, i.e., “Once the appropriate databases have been searched for information responsive to the original query, the results of the search are returned to the user (step 83)”).
Kepler fails to explicitly teaches the one or more values for the first set of data fields are generated by using a generative artificial intelligence model. However, in the same field of endeavor, Du teaches the one or more values for the first set of data fields are generated by using a generative artificial intelligence model (Du Col 7 Ln 4-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kepler by incorporating the teachings of Du. The motivation would be for allowing different users to select a desired AI model for their search strategies and/or query augmentation (Du Col 7 Ln 33-49).
As to claim 7, Kepler as modified by Du also teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising orchestrating, from two or more sources of data in the database system, a single set of values for the first or second set of data fields (Kepler page 8 first paragraph, i.e., merged records from multiple, multi-databases records).
Claim 8 corresponds to claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 9 corresponds to claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 10 corresponds to claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kepler in view of Du, and further in view of Pal et al. (WO 2020027867 A1, hereinafter “Pal”).
As to claim 2, Kepler as modified by Du teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein determining a number of search results corresponding to the search request further comprises validating the generated one or more values for the first set of data fields by using a machine-learning model. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pal teaches determining a number of search results corresponding to the search request further comprises validating the generated one or more values for the first set of data fields by using a machine-learning model (Pal ¶¶001003-001005). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kepler and Du by incorporating the teachings of Pal. The motivation would be for providing optimizations on the translated subquery (Pal ¶001004).
As to claim 3, Kepler as modified by Du and Pal also teaches the method of claim 2, wherein validating the generated one or more values for the first set of data fields by using a machine-learning model comprises determining, using the machine-learning model, that a first generated value for the first set of data fields is likely to correspond to data retrievable from the database system and using the first generated value to determine the one or more values for the second set of data fields (Pal ¶001006, i.e., fields that likely to return values);
determining, using the machine-learning model, that a second generated value for the first set of data fields is unlikely to correspond to data retrievable from the database system and discarding the second generated value s (Pal ¶001006, i.e., data from unused fields are discarded);
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kepler in view of Du and Pal, and further in view of Legrand et al. (EP 2 908 255 A1, hereinafter “Legrand”).
As to claim 4, Kepler as modified by Du and Pal teaches the method of claim 3, but fails to explicitly teach wherein determining, using the machine-learning model, that a first generated value for the first set of data fields is likely to correspond to data retrievable from the database system comprises determining a confidence level of the first generated value for the first set of data fields being at least at a given confidence threshold. However, in the same field of endeavor, Legrand teaches determining, using the machine-learning model, that a first generated value for the first set of data fields is likely to correspond to data retrievable from the database system comprises determining a confidence level of the first generated value for the first set of data fields being at least at a given confidence threshold (Legrand ¶¶0008-0009). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kepler, Du and Pal by incorporating the teachings of Legrand. The motivation would be for providing a mechanism to increase validity or confidence of search results retrieved from a pool of pre-computed search results (Legrand ¶0001).
As to claim 5, Kepler as modified by Du, Pal and Legrand also teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the confidence threshold is set by the search request (Legrand Fig. 5, box 10).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kepler in view of Du and Pal, and further in view of Wu et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2024/0330411 A1, hereinafter “Wu”).
As to claim 6, Kepler as modified by Du and Pal teaches the method of claim 2, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the generative artificial intelligence model and the machine-learning model constitute a conditional generative adversarial network, wherein the generative artificial intelligence model is the generator of the conditional generative adversarial network and the machine-learning model is the discriminator of the conditional generative adversarial network. However, Wu teaches the generative artificial intelligence model and the machine-learning model constitute a conditional generative adversarial network, wherein the generative artificial intelligence model is the generator of the conditional generative adversarial network and the machine-learning model is the discriminator of the conditional generative adversarial network (Wu ¶0024). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kepler, Du and Pal by incorporating the teachings of Wu. The motivation would be for the generator to improve its outputs based on the feedback it receives from the discriminators (Wu ¶0024).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER KHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm EST.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571)272-4085. 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.
/ALEXANDER KHONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168