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 . Claims 21-40 have been examined and are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 21-40 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter.
With respect to independent claims 21, 30, 39, the determining, selecting, transforming, generating, performing cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The receiving, causing presentation limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38 the determinings, process, generating, filling, validate cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 22, 27, 31, 36, 40 fields, obtained are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 21-26, 28-35, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., Pub. No.: US 20170221008 A1, hereinafter Li in view of Kelkar et al., Pub. No.: US 20230274095 A1, hereinafter Kelkar.
As per claim 21, Li discloses A method comprising:
receiving a search query associated with an entity, wherein the search query is associated with executing a function on an online platform (pars. 30, 37, 45, 71-74 disclose segmenting and/or tagging received search queries into entity types/attributes with corresponding entity values/content, the search queries being “associated with” execution of many functions including search, rank, etc. on an online social networking platform);
determining an intent of the entity for the search query based on entity data associated with the entity (pars. 23, 31, 34, 46-49);
Li does not expressly disclose, however Kelkar in the related field of endeavor of information retrieval discloses selecting a prompt template from a set of prompt templates based on the intent of the entity, wherein different intents are associated with different prompt templates (Kelkar, pars. 10-11, 85, 88, 92 disclose determining a template from a set of predefined templates based on a detected intent with entity/slot extraction used to predict (i.e. select and use) the best template).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Kelkar would have allowed Li’s method of determining user intent/entity context for ranking feature and model selection to select templates based on intent in order to improve personalization and output quality. Kelkar provides dynamically generated intent specific outputs rather than a list of ranked documents.
transforming the intent of the entity into an intent parameter that characterizes the intent of the entity (Li, pars. 53-60, 68-74 disclose converting user skills, profiles, behaviors into feature vectors, matrices, latent factors, similarity metrics that parameterize user expertise and intent);
generating a prompt for a generative artificial intelligence (GAI) model using the prompt template, the prompt based on the search query and including the intent parameter (Kelkar, pars. 11, 29, 85, 108 discloses NLG and DNN which convey GAI models that are used to carry out the generating as claimed);
performing a search, using the online platform, wherein the search comprises sending the prompt to the GAI model to generate an output based on the prompt (Li, pars. 71-74 discloses searching and ML based ranking using parameterized inputs and Kelkar, pars. 11, 85, 88 disclose sending a structured prompt to a generating model by means of invoking a generative DNN/NLG to generate the response conditioned on intent, slots/entities, and dialog context);
receiving the output from the GAI model in response to the prompt (Kelkar, pars. 85-93); and
causing presentation of the output at a graphical user interface (GUI) (Li, pars. 29, 30, 66, 74 and Kelkar, pars. 86-94).
As per claim 22, Li in view of Kelkar discloses The method of claim 21, wherein the prompt template comprises fields for the intent, the search query, and a network of connections associated with the entity (Li, pars. 23, 31, 34, 46, 53-60 and Kelkar, pars. 11, 85).
As per claim 23, Li in view of Kelkar discloses The method of claim 21, further comprising determining the intent of the entity based on the search query and the entity data, the entity data representing interactions between the entity and an online service (Li, pars. 23, 31-34, 46, 49 and Kelkar, pars. 10).
As per claim 24, Li in view of Kelkar discloses The method of claim 23, wherein determining the intent of the entity includes: processing the search query, known characteristics about the entity, and the interactions between the entity and the online service with a machine learning (ML) model to determine the intent of the entity, wherein the ML model is trained on historical data of search queries, selected search results, and characteristics of entities associated with the online service (Li, pars. 53-60, 68-74 and Kelkar, pars. 10, 85).
As per claim 25, Li in view of Kelkar discloses the method of claim 23, wherein the intent of the entity is determined from a set of predefined intents; wherein the set of prompt templates includes at least one prompt template for each of the set of predefined intents (Kelkar, par. 11 and Li, pars. 45, 61).
As per claim 26, Li in view of Kelkar discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the prompt template includes a set of fields, including at least a first field for the intent of the entity, a second field for the search query, and a third field for a network of connections associated with the entity (Kelkar, pars. 11, 85 and Li, pars. 23, 31, 53-60); and wherein generating the prompt includes filling in the first field with the intent of the entity, the second field with the search query, and the third field with connection information regarding the network of connections associated with the entity (Kelkar, pars. 11, 85 and Li, pars. 23, 31, 53-60).
As per claim 28, Li in view of Kelkar discloses the method of claim 21, wherein performing the search includes determining, based on the intent parameter, a search index on which to perform the search, and performing the search in the search index (Li, pars. 38-45, 61, 71-74 and Kelkar, par. 10).
As per claim 29, Li in view of Kelkar discloses The method of claim 21, comprising validating the output generated by the GAI model to ensure the output meets a predefined guideline (Kelkar, pars. 85-93, Li, pars. 71-74).
As per claims 30-35 and 37-40, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected.
Claims 27 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as modified and further in view of Baruch et al., Pub. No.: US 20240354503 A1, hereinafter Baruch.
As per claim 27, Li in view of Kelkar discloses The method of claim 26. The combination does not disclose however Baruch discloses wherein the network of connections associated with the entity corresponds to information obtained from a knowledge graph about the entity and relationships between the entity and one or more other entities (Baruch, pars. 56, 58, 209-212).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Baruch would have allowed the combination to incorporate a graph of connections and relationships between users of the user connection network and between users and other entities in order to provide more relevant and more personalized information to users (Baruch pars. 39, 44, 90, 97, 108-112). Claim 36 is likewise rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 pm.
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.
Syed Hasan
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154