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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is in claim language/legalese format. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Correction is required.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 7 is directed to a program which does not fall into one of the enumerated four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Claim 7 is a non-statutory under the most recent interpretation of the Guidelines regarding 35 U.S.C.101 because the claim scope is toward a computer program per se (i.e. software), and as such, is considered to be nonstatutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106. Computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
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 is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the structural relationship between a storage device and processor, as well as, the retrieval of the stored program/programinstructions executed by a processor to execute the method steps.
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) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Porter (20190057143).
As per claim 1, Porter (20190057143) teaches a conversation assisting method using a computer, the conversation assisting method, by the computer, comprising: a voice analyzing step of analyzing a voice in a conversation to obtain a voice word, the voice word being a word included in the conversation (as analyzing keywords of the chat query/question – para 0030, which can be in voice form – see para 0153 using well known I/O devices for input; examiner notes that a smartphone/etc, has microphone interfaces to have the input query in speech form);
a paragraph analyzing step of analyzing the conversation by using the voice word to obtain a paragraph group, the paragraph group being a plurality of paragraphs included in the conversation (as, deriving a topic from the keywords – para 0030, and then identifying the group of sentences/paragraphs that match the topic – para 0054);
a paragraph classifying step of classifying each paragraph included in the paragraph group to obtain paragraph classification data indicating which group each of the paragraphs belongs to (as, identifying and marking the groups of sentences according to topic content/subject matter – see para 0056);
and a paragraph suggesting step of leading a paragraph following the conversation to a paragraph that is classified into a recommended group, by referring to an evaluation value storage unit, reading information about the recommended group by using the paragraph classification data, and outputting a recommended keyword or a sentence including the recommended keyword (as using relational rules to update the language model based on the relationship between content topics, portions, and terms – para 0062 – and then using the relational-rule based language model to generate a response to the query – see response generator in para 0126, and para 0127);
the evaluation value storage unit storing an evaluation value of a group, the recommended group being a group that is to follow the conversation, the recommended keyword being stored in association with the recommended group (as calculating a distance/closeness to match the recommended group to the recommend keyword – para 0078).
As per claim 2, Porter (20190057143) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the paragraph analyzing step is a step of, by using the voice word included in each paragraph included in the paragraph group and using information about a paragraph analysis keyword,
obtaining the paragraph group, the paragraph analysis keyword being for analyzing a paragraph on a basis of a voice word (as, determining the distance between the chat question keyword and content/topic term – see para 0077).
As per claim 3, Porter (20190057143) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein each paragraph included in the paragraph group corresponds to a presentation material or a page of a presentation material (see para 0039, for various types of digital content, including presentation material such as answer/response, product/service information/support).
As per claim 4, Porter (20190057143) teaches a conversation assisting method using a computer, the conversation assisting method, by the computer. comprising:
a voice analyzing step of analyzing a voice in a conversation to obtain a voice word, the voice word being a word included in the conversation (as analyzing keywords of the chat query/question – para 0030, which can be in voice form – see para 0153 using well known I/O devices for input; examiner notes that a smartphone/etc, has microphone interfaces to have the input query in speech form);; a paragraph analyzing step of analyzing the conversation by using the voice word to obtain a paragraph group, the paragraph group being a plurality of paragraphs included in the conversation (as, deriving a topic from the keywords – para 0030, and then identifying the group of sentences/paragraphs that match the topic – para 0054);
a paragraph classifying step of classifying each paragraph included in the paragraph group to obtain paragraph classification data indicating which group each of the paragraphs belongs to; and a paragraph suggesting step of referring to an evaluation value storage unit (as using relational rules to update the language model based on the relationship between content topics, portions, and terms – para 0062 – and then using the relational-rule based language model to generate a response to the query – see response generator in para 0126, and para 0127),
obtaining an evaluation value of the conversation by using the paragraph classification data, and outputting, when a group sequence with a higher evaluation value than the evaluation value of the conversation is present, a keyword or a sentence including the keyword (as calculating a distance/closeness to match the recommended group to the recommend keyword – para 0078; with a closest distance having a higher value),
the evaluation value storage unit storing an evaluation value of a group, the keyword being stored in association with a group sequence that makes an evaluation value high (as based on the closeness calculation, see para 0078, storing/updating the language model with the associated parameters – para 0049).
As per claim 5, Porter (20190057143) teaches the method according to claim 4, further comprising a step of displaying group sequences included in the conversation, a keyword included in each of the group sequences included in the conversation,
group sequences that make the evaluation value high, and a keyword included in each of the group sequences that make the evaluation value high (as choosing the shortest distance between content topic and chat question – which denotes the highest degree of relevance – para 0078, and para 0079 showing relevant levels based on the distance measurement – para 0079).
As per claim 6, Porter (20190057143) teaches the method according to claim 4, further comprising a step of displaying a change in evaluation value for each of group sequences included in the conversation and a change in evaluation value for each of group sequences that make the evaluation value high (as displaying the relevant decision to the user via the user interface – para 0112).
Claims 7,8 are program/computer readable medium claims that perform the steps found in method steps 1-6 above and as such, claims 7,8 are similar in scope and content to claims 1-6 above; therefore, claims 7-8 are rejected under similar rationale as presented against claims 1-6 above. Furthermore, Porter (20190057143) teaches computer readable storage devices storing executable code by processors to perform the steps – see para 0128.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see related art listed on the PTO-892 form.
Furthermore, the following reference were found to contain features found in applicants specification/claims:
Swift (20230214589) teaches altering/rearranging words in sentences to more closely match the topic of discussion.
Li et al (20200167417) teaches topic derivation and rating the sentence accordingly, as well as clustering/labeling the sentences according to topic (para 0028).
Huang et al (20190188316) teaches grouping of questions/sentences toward a topic, with an extractor model and response component – para 0013, 0021.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Opsasnick, telephone number (571)272-7623, who is available Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Richemond Dorvil, can be reached at (571)272-7602. 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).
/Michael N Opsasnick/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658 9/27/2026
