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 .
Continuity/reexam data
Parent data
19178602 filed 04/14/2025
claims foreign priority to 202410466154.3, filed 04/17/2024
Child data
None
Foreign data
Priority number
Date
Country code
Country
202410466154.3
04/17/2024
CN
CHINA
(*) - Request to retrieve electronic copy of foreign priority from participating receiving offices.
1. Claims presented for examination: 1-20
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
4. Drawing filed on 04/14/2025 is accepted by examiner.
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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (See MPEP 2106)
Claims 1, 14 and 20 are directed to a method, a system and non-transitory computer readable medium which belongs to a statutory class.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims 1, 8 and 15, the limitations
“output information that meets a matching condition with the input information, the target response type being used in determination of at least one of a source of the output information or a method of determining the output information” as drafted this recites a mentally performable process of determining an output. This is also consistent with Fig. 1A.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claims 1, 8 and 15, recite “memory”, “computer program”, and “processor” are genetic computer components and routines which performing mental process.
The limitations includes:
“obtaining input information” as drafted this recites a mentally performable process. This also consistent with Fig. 1A are data gathering process.
"obtaining, in response to the input information and based on a target response type is the data gathering process.
“outputting the output information” as drafted this recites outputting process processes for simple display. It is generic output routines. This is also consistent with the specification as in Fig. 1A.
Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
As to claims 2 and 15,
The limitation “in a first state, displaying a first display area, the input information being displayed in a first sub-area of the first display area, the output information being displayed in a second sub-area of the first display area, and the second sub-area being a part of the first display area that is different from the first sub-area” is additional element which providing information and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
The limitation “in a second state, displaying the first display area and a second display area, adjacent edges between the second display area and the first display area satisfying a matching relationship, the input information being displayed in the first sub-area of the first display area, a first part of the output information being displayed in the second sub-arca of the first display area, and a second part of the output information being displayed in the second display area” is additional element which providing information and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claims 3 and 16, the limitation “obtaining the output information based on an information set that includes file information and processing information of a file corresponding to the file information, the output information including at least one of content information, file information, or positioning link information of a target file that meets the matching condition with the input information” is a mentally performable process.
As to claim 4, the limitations “in response to first file information of a first file being added to the information set, obtaining positioning link information of the first file and first processing information after processing file content of the first file, and associatively adding the first file information, the positioning link information of the first file, and the first processing information to the information set; in response to a second file corresponding to second file information in the information set being updated, processing file content of the second file after being updated to obtain second processing information corresponding to the second file, and updating processing information associated with the second file information in the information set to the second processing information; and n response to third file information in the information set or a third file corresponding to the third file information being deleted, deleting positioning link information and third processing information associated with the third file information from the information set” are the additional elements which are insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claim 5, the limitation “obtaining, based on processing information associated with the file information in the information set, the output information that matches the target input information” is a mentally performable process) is
As to claim 6, the limitations “a first language used in file content of a file corresponding to the file information is different from a second language used in the target input information” is only further defined what in the file contain and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
The limitations “obtaining, based on the processing information associated with the file information in the information set, the output information that matches the target input information, includes: adjusting a language of the target input information to the first language;
obtaining, based on the processing information associated with the file information in the information set, intermediate information that matches the target input information that has been adjusted; and adjusting a language of the intermediate information to the second language to
obtain the output information that matches the target input information” are mentally performable processes” are the additional elements which are insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claim 7, the limitation “displaying a first display area and a second display area;
wherein: the input information is displayed in a first sub-area of the first display area;
the output information is displayed in a second sub-area of the first display area; the second sub-area is a part of the first display area different from the first sub-area; a list of file information added to the information set and content processing status
of files corresponding to file information in the file information list are displayed in the
second display area, the content processing status of one file representing a status of
processing file content of the one file” are the displaying the files and updating display files are significant to amount significantly more.
As to claims 8 and 17, the limitation “obtaining the output information includes: obtaining the output information based on system information, the output information including at least one of parameter information or instruction information that meets the matching condition with the input information” is mentally performable process.
As to claims 9 and 18, the limitation “generating the output information based on a processing model, the output information including dialogue reply content for the input information” is a mentally performable process.
As to claims 10 and 19, the limitation “determining the target response type based on the input information” is mentally performable process of determining.
As to claim 11, the limitation “obtaining a set response type as the target response type in response to a type setting operation” is mentally performable process of obtaining.
As to claim 12, the limitation “obtaining query information as the input information in response to a content query operation performed during an editing process of a file” in mentally performable process.
At to claim 13, the limitation “adding part or all of the output information to the file” is an additional element which is insignificantly amount significantly more.
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.
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.
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.
6. Claim(s) s 1, 3, 5 and 8-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puirier et al. (Patent No. US 6,321,372 B1) in view of Govil et al. (Patent No. US 11,544,285 A1).
As to claim 1, Puirier discloses an interaction method comprising:
obtaining input information (request objects) (col. 12, line 62);
obtaining, in response to the input information and based on a target response type (dictionally lookup object 354 has been specified by adding a result language parameter, a tokenizer type parameter, a morphological analyzer type parameter…) (col. 17, lines 17-19)
output information that meets a matching condition with the input (result format parameter for providing information that can be used to return result…) (col. 16, lines 58-65).,
outputting the output information (result format parameter for providing information that can be used to return result…) (col. 16, lines 58-65).
Puirier do not explicitly discloses the target response type being used in determination of at least one of a source of the output information or a method of determining the output information. However, Govil discloses the target response type being used in determination of at least one of a source of the output information or a method of determining the output information (as shown in FIG. 1E, and by reference number 125, the automated data transformation system may execute the query results, with the template, to generate a first set of output data in a third format associated with the target system…) (col. 6, lines 55-59). This suggests the claimed limitation the target response type being used in determination of at least one of a source of the output information or a method of determining the output information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Puirier to include the target response type being used in determination of at least one of a source of the output information or a method of determining the output information as disclosed by Govil in order to provide corrected format.
As to claim 3, Puirier discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the output information includes: obtaining the output information based on an information set that includes file information and processing information of a file corresponding to the file information, the output information including at least one of content information, file information, or positioning link information of a target file that meets the matching condition with the input information (dictionally lookup object 354 has been specified by adding a result language parameter, a tokenizer type parameter, a morphological analyzer type parameter…) (col. 17, lines 17-19).
As to claim 5, Puirier discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein: the input information includes file information in the information set and target input information for the file information; and obtaining the output information includes: obtaining, based on processing information associated with the file information in the information set, the output information that matches the target input information (result format parameter for providing information that can be used to return result…) (col. 16, lines 58-65).
As to claim 8, Puirier discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the output information includes: obtaining the output information based on system information, the output information including at least one of parameter information or instruction information that meets the matching condition with the input information (result format parameter for providing information that can be used to return result…) (col. 16, lines 58-65).
As to claim 9, Puirier discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the output information includes: generating the output information based on a processing model, the output information including dialogue reply content for the input information (….. (Hidden Markov Model (HMM) based) (col. 17, lines 36-43).
As to claim 10, Puirier discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining the target response type based on the input information (dictionary lookup request object 354 is a descendant of request abstract object 350, but specified to invoked a dictionary look up service. The dictionary lookup request object 354 has been specified by adding the result language parameter…) (col 17, lines 24-30).
As to claim 11, Puirier discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining a set response type as the target response type in response to a type setting
operation (result format parameter for providing information that can be used to return result…) (col. 16, lines 58-65).
As to claim 12, Puirier discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the input information includes: obtaining query information as the input information in response to a content query operation performed during an editing process of a file (..a programmer can modify the source code by interactively editing it…) (col. 8, lines 6-9)
As to claim 13, Puirier discloses the method according to claim 12, further comprising:
adding part or all of the output information to the file (result format parameter for providing information that can be used to return result…) (col. 16, lines 58-65).
Claim 14 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Puirier discloses an electronic apparatus comprising: a memory storing a computer program; and a processor configured to execute the computer program (a “program” is an item of data that indicates a sequence of instructions that a processor can execute) (col. 7, lines 63-67).
Claim 16 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 3.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 8.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 9.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 10.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (memory circuitry…) (col. 6, lines 24-30)storing a computer program that, when executed by a processor (a “program” is an item of data that indicates a sequence of instructions that a processor can execute) (col 7, lines 63-67).
7. Claim(s) 2, 7 and 15 and are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poirier et al. (Patent No. US 6,321,372 B1) in view of Govil et al. (Patent No. US 11,544,285 A1) and further in in view of Li et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0358379 A1).
As to claim 2, Puirier and Govil disclose the method according to claim 1 excepting for in a first state, displaying a first display area, the input information being displayed in a
first sub-area of the first display area, the output information being displayed in a second sub-
area of the first display area, and the second sub-area being a part of the first display area that is different from the first sub-area; and in a second state, displaying the first display area and a second display area, adjacent edges between the second display area and the first display area satisfying a matching relationship, the input information being displayed in the first sub-area of the first display area, a first part of the output information being displayed in the second sub-area of the first display area, and a second part of the output information being displayed in the second display area. However, Li discloses for in a first state, displaying a first display area, the input information being displayed in a first sub-area of the first display area, the output information being displayed in a second sub-area of the first display area, and the second sub-area being a part of the first display area that is different from the first sub-area; and in a second state, displaying the first display area and a second display area, adjacent edges between the second display area and the first display area satisfying a matching relationship, the input information being displayed in the first sub-area of the first display area, a first part of the output information being displayed in the second sub-area of the first display area, and a second part of the output information being displayed in the second display area (in a particular implementation, in the display subscribe substrate according to disclosure, a relative positional relationship between the first display sub-are and the second display sub-area and their shape will be not limited to any particular relative positional relationship and shapes…) (paragraph 0073). This suggests the claimed language a first state, displaying a first display area, the input information being displayed in a first sub-area of the first display area, the output information being displayed in a second sub-area of the first display area, and the second sub-area being a part of the first display area that is different from the first sub-area; and in a second state, displaying the first display area and a second display area, adjacent edges between the second display area and the first display area satisfying a matching relationship, the input information being displayed in the first sub-area of the first display area, a first part of the output information being displayed in the second sub-area of the first display area, and a second part of the output information being displayed in the second display area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Puirier and Govil to include for in a first state, displaying a first display area, the input information being displayed in a first sub-area of the first display area, the output information being displayed in a second sub-area of the first display area, and the second sub-area being a part of the first display area that is different from the first sub-area; and in a second state, displaying the first display area and a second display area, adjacent edges between the second display area and the first display area satisfying a matching relationship, the input information being displayed in the first sub-area of the first display area, a first part of the output information being displayed in the second sub-area of the first display area, and a second part of the output information being displayed in the second display area as disclosed by Li in order to displayed information.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 2.
As to claim 7, Puirier and Govil discloses the method according to claim 3 excepting for displaying a first display area and a second display area; wherein: the input information is displayed in a first sub-area of the first display area; the output information is displayed in a second sub-area of the first display area; the second sub-area is a part of the first display area different from the first sub-area; a list of file information added to the information set and content processing status of files corresponding to file information in the file information list are displayed in the second display area, the content processing status of one file representing a status of processing file content of the one file. Li discloses displaying a first display area and a second display area; wherein: the input information is displayed in a first sub-area of the first display area; the output information is displayed in a second sub-area of the first display area; the second sub-area is a part of the first display area different from the first sub-area; a list of file information added to the information set and content processing status of files corresponding to file information in the file information list are displayed in the second display area, the content processing status of one file representing a status of processing file content of the one file (in a particular implementation, in the display subscribe substrate according to disclosure, a relative positional relationship between the first display sub-are and the second display sub-area and their shape will be not limited to any particular relative positional relationship and shapes…) (paragraph 0073). This suggested the claim language displaying a first display area and a second display area; wherein: the input information is displayed in a first sub-area of the first display area; the output information is displayed in a second sub-area of the first display area; the second sub-area is a part of the first display area different from the first sub-area; a list of file information added to the information set and content processing status of files corresponding to file information in the file information list are displayed in the second display area, the content processing status of one file representing a status of processing file content of the one file. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Puirier and Govil to include displaying a first display area and a second display area; wherein: the input information is displayed in a first sub-area of the first display area; the output information is displayed in a second sub-area of the first display area; the second sub-area is a part of the first display area different from the first sub-area; a list of file information added to the information set and content processing status of files corresponding to file information in the file information list are displayed in the second display area, the content processing status of one file representing a status of processing file content of the one file as disclosed by Li in order to provide displaying search result.
8. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puirier et al. (Patent No. US 6,321,372 B1) in view of Govil et al. (Patent No. US 11,544,285 A1) and further in in view of Nitta (Pub. No. US 2012/0124581 A1).
As to claim 4, Both Puirier and Govil disclose the method according to claim 3 excepting for in response to first file information of a first file being added to the information set, obtaining positioning link information of the first file and first processing information after processing file content of the first file, and associatively adding the first file information, the positioning link information of the first file, and the first processing information to the information set; in response to a second file corresponding to second file information in the information set being updated, processing file content of the second file after being updated to obtain second processing information corresponding to the second file, and updating processing information associated with the second file information in the information set to the second processing information; and in response to third file information in the information set or a third file corresponding to the third file information being deleted, deleting positioning link information and third processing information associated with the third file information from the information set. However, Nitta discloses in response to first file information of a first file being added to the information set, obtaining positioning link information of the first file and first processing information after processing file content of the first file, and associatively adding the first file information, the positioning link information of the first file, and the first processing information to the information set (…virtual disk 120 to which the patch file 200 is to be applied in the disk volume 1002, stores the patch identifier of the patch file 200 in the link patch 1003, adds the position patch…) (paragraph 0092); in response to a second file corresponding to second file information in the information set being updated, processing file content of the second file after being updated to obtain second processing information corresponding to the second file (when the processing has not been completed for all eh virtual severs 109 and all the patch files 200, the virtualization mechanism …) (paragraph 0093), and updating processing information associated with the second file information in the information set to the second processing information; and in response to third file information in the information set or a third file corresponding to the third file information being deleted, deleting positioning link information and third processing information associated with the third file information from the information set (in step 1706, the patch distribution module 305 updates the file link table 306 by deleting the records to which the patches have been applied) (paragraph 0121). This suggests the concept of for in response to first file information of a first file being added to the information set, obtaining positioning link information of the first file and first processing information after processing file content of the first file, and associatively adding the first file information, the positioning link information of the first file, and the first processing information to the information set; in response to a second file corresponding to second file information in the information set being updated, processing file content of the second file after being updated to obtain second processing information corresponding to the second file, and updating processing information associated with the second file information in the information set to the second processing information; and in response to third file information in the information set or a third file corresponding to the third file information being deleted, deleting positioning link information and third processing information associated with the third file information from the information set. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Both Puirier and Govil to include for in response to first file information of a first file being added to the information set, obtaining positioning link information of the first file and first processing information after processing file content of the first file, and associatively adding the first file information, the positioning link information of the first file, and the first processing information to the information set; in response to a second file corresponding to second file information in the information set being updated, processing file content of the second file after being updated to obtain second processing information corresponding to the second file, and updating processing information associated with the second file information in the information set to the second processing information; and in response to third file information in the information set or a third file corresponding to the third file information being deleted, deleting positioning link information and third processing information associated with the third file information from the information set as disclosed by Nitta in order to update link files for retrieval.
9. Claim(s) 6 and are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puirier et al. (Patent No. US 6,321,372 B1) in view of Govil et al. (Patent No. US 11,544,285 A1) and further in in view of Kaiser (Pub. No. 2007/0168922 A1).
As to claim 6, Puirier and Govil disclose the method according to claim 5, wherein:
a first language used in file content of a file corresponding to the file information is
different from a second language used in the target input information (the result language parameter can indicate a language in which the results are provided, which will be different than the input language…) (col. 17, lines 31-34); and
obtaining, based on the processing information associated with the file information in the
information set, the output information that matches the target input information (result format parameter for providing information that can be used to return result…) (col. 16, lines 58-65) excepting for adjusting a language of the target input information to the first language; obtaining, based on the processing information associated with the file information in the information set, intermediate information that matches the target input information that has been adjusted; and adjusting a language of the intermediate information to the second language to obtain the output information that matches the target input information. However, Kaiser discloses adjusting a language of the target input information to the first language; obtaining, based on the processing information associated with the file information in the information set, intermediate information that matches the target input information that has been adjusted; and adjusting a language of the intermediate information to the second language to obtain the output information that matches the target input information (the grammar 206 and lexicon 208 may be seamlessly integrated in the operation of the translator 204 so that no intermediate results-the rough natural language statements-are detected before the translation 204 outputs its final result) (paragraph 0033). This suggests the claim language adjusting a language of the target input information to the first language; obtaining, based on the processing information associated with the file information in the information set, intermediate information that matches the target input information that has been adjusted; and adjusting a language of the intermediate information to the second language to obtain the output information that matches the target input information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Puirier and Govil to include adjusting a language of the target input information to the first language; obtaining, based on the processing information associated with the file information in the information set, intermediate information that matches the target input information that has been adjusted; and adjusting a language of the intermediate information to the second language to obtain the output information that matches the target input information as disclosed by Kaiser in order to provide data to the request.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154