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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The pending claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the guidance set forth in MPEP 2106 which has incorporated the 2019 PEG.
Regarding to claim 1,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 1 recites: A method comprising:
“based on a first natural language query associated with a first client, determining, based on a first user profile associated with the first client, first access rights, wherein the first access rights indicate the first client may access a first space”. This element reads on a person determines first access rights indicate access a first space based on a natural language query and a first user profile which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“generating, based on the first access rights, a first response using information from a first plurality of files accessible via the first space”. This element reads on a person generates a first response from files accessible via the first space which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“based on a second natural language query associated with a second client, determining, based on a second user profile associated with the second client, second access rights, wherein the second access rights indicate the second client device may access the first space and a second space, wherein the first user profile does not indicate access rights to the second space”. This element reads on a person determines second access rights indicate access a second space based on a natural language query and a second user profile which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“generating, based on the second access rights, a second response using information from the first plurality of files accessible via the first space and a second plurality of files accessible via the second space”. This element reads on a person generates a second response from files accessible via the first space and the second space which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
“sending, based on the first natural language query and the second natural language query, the first response to the first client and the second response to the second client”. This element reads on a person sends the first response to the first client and the second response to the second client which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation.
Overall, the limitations directed to send response based on access rights on space and the various mental process limitations in the context of this claim encompasses limitations that are not only considered to be directed to limitations that could be practically performed in the human mind (including observations and preform an evaluation, judgment, and opinion) aided by the use of pen and paper. If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: In Step 2A Prong 2, we are directed to Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of “device”
Regarding the device,
The processor of a device for generating and storing in all steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (generating and storing). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element “a device” is simply applying the abstract idea, and there is nothing done with results. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and does not provide any improvement in computer technology (see MPEP2106.05(a)).
Therefore, the additional element(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: In Step 2B, we are directed to Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, The additional element(s) “a device” is simply applying the abstract idea, and there is nothing done with results.
Accordingly, this additional element(s), taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites “causing, based on the first user profile, the first client device to be restricted from accessing the second space." That is, the claim recites causing, based on the first user profile, the first client device to be restricted from accessing the second space. The above-noted limitation of claim 2, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 3 recites “wherein generating the first response comprises:
determining, based on the first natural language query, relevant information from the first plurality of files;
causing a large language model to process the relevant information; and
generating, based on output from the large language model, the first response." That is, the claim recites
determining, based on the first natural language query, relevant information from the first plurality of files;
causing a large language model to process the relevant information; and
generating, based on output from the large language model, the first response. The above-noted limitation of claim 3, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 4 is dependent on claims 1-2, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 4 recites “
receiving, based on a third natural language query from the first client device, a third request for information related to the second space;
determining, based on the first user profile, that the first client device lacks access rights to the second space; and
sending, based on the lack of access rights, a notification to the first client device indicating that the requested information is not accessible." That is, the claim recites
receiving, based on a third natural language query from the first client device, a third request for information related to the second space;
determining, based on the first user profile, that the first client device lacks access rights to the second space; and
sending, based on the lack of access rights, a notification to the first client device indicating that the requested information is not accessible.
. The above-noted limitation of claim 4, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 5 recites “
accessing, based on the first user profile and the second user profile, a database of user permissions; and
retrieving, based on the database, space identifiers associated with each user profile." That is, the claim recites
accessing, based on the first user profile and the second user profile, a database of user permissions; and
retrieving, based on the database, space identifiers associated with each user profile. The above-noted limitation of claim 5, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 6 is dependent on claims 1&5, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the space identifiers comprise globally unique identifiers (GUIDs) associated with logical containers having built-in security parameters." That is, the claim recites the space identifiers comprise globally unique identifiers (GUIDs) associated with logical containers having built-in security parameters. The above-noted limitation of claim 6, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 7 recites “
generating, based on the first response and the second response, a log of accessed information;
determining, based on the log, usage patterns for the first space and the second space; and
causing, based on the usage patterns, an update to access rights for at least one of the first user profile or the second user profile." That is, the claim recites
generating, based on the first response and the second response, a log of accessed information;
determining, based on the log, usage patterns for the first space and the second space; and
causing, based on the usage patterns, an update to access rights for at least one of the first user profile or the second user profile. The above-noted limitation of claim 7, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the same rational of claims 1-7.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the same rational of claims 1-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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.
5. 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. 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.
7. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
8. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PIERSON et al (WO 2016090326 A1, hereinafter “PIERSON”) in view of Chen (Title: Policy-Based Access Control in Federated Clinical Question Answering, Author: Alice Chen, Date: May, 2024, Pages 1-100, Publisher: MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, hereinafter, “Chen”).
9. With respect to claim 1,
PIERSON discloses a method comprising:
based on a first natural language query associated with a first client device, determining, based on a first user profile associated with the first client device, first access rights, wherein the first access rights indicate the first client device may access a first space (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. [0028] According to a further aspect of the invention, there is provided a digital platform to provide recommendations for content. The platform comprises a server, and the server comprises a server processor and memory. The memory comprises instructions executable by the processor, and when executed the instructions cause the platform perform a sequence of steps: The platform creates a digital space comprising user profiles for each of a plurality of users and a plurality of contents. The platform divides the digital space into a private digital space and a public digital space. The platform associates each of the plurality of contents with one or more of the private digital space or the public digital space. The platform determines access rights for the plurality of users with regard to the private digital space. And the platform control user access of contents associated with the private digital space in response to the access rights. The platform further collects the plurality of contents. The platform allows the plurality of users to provide insights on one or more accessed contents, and the platform records learning journals of the plurality of users reflecting access of the plurality of contents by the plurality of users. The platform further performs a sequence of steps to generate recommendations of content: The platform generates a graphical model with a plurality of content nodes, a plurality of user nodes, and a plurality of concept nodes. The platform assigns each of the plurality of users to a corresponding user node in the plurality of user nodes and each of the plurality of contents to a corresponding content node in plurality of content nodes. The platform associates the plurality of user nodes with concept nodes by analyzing access behaviors, the insights, the learning journals, and the user profiles. The platform associates the plurality of content nodes with concept nodes in response to user access of the contents, user insights provided for the contents, and one or more components of the contents. The platform compares the plurality of contents to the plurality of users. And the platform recommends one or more contents of the plurality of contents to the plurality of users in response to said comparing. [0055] In another aspect, a method provides recommendations for content. A digital space is created comprising user profiles for each of a plurality of users and a plurality of contents. The digital space is dived into a private digital space and a public digital space. Each of the plurality of contents is associated with one or more of the private digital space or the public digital space. Access rights are determined for the plurality of users with regard to the private digital space. User access is controlled for contents associated with the private digital space in response to the access rights. The plurality of contents is collected. The plurality of users is allowed to provide insights on one or more accessed contents. Learning journals of the plurality of users are recorded reflecting access of the plurality of contents by the plurality of users. Recommendations of content are generated by: … [00236] The platform aggregates data contents by elastic search, natural language processing, makes sense of massive volumes of content, transcending the information that exist on the Internet and indistinct systems. The platform uses profiles to catalyze big data, institutional data and proprietary algorithms (e.g., an analysis method developed by an enterprise IT department) to understand each user’s dynamic learning profile, breadth of influence and depths of engagement);
generating, based on the first access rights, a first response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response) using information from a first plurality of files (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. contents) accessible via the first space;
based on a second natural language query (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. elastic search, natural language processing) associated with a second client device, determining, based on a second user profile (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. user profile) associated with the second client device, second access rights (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. access rights);
generating, based on the second access rights, a second response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response) using information from the first plurality of files (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. contents) accessible via the first space (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. private space) and a second plurality of files accessible via the second space (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. public space); and
sending, based on the first natural language query and the second natural language query, the first response to the first client device and the second response to the second client device (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response).
Although PIERSON substantially teaches the claimed invention, PIERSON does not explicitly indicate wherein the second access rights indicate the second client device may access the first space and a second space, wherein the first user profile does not indicate access rights to the second space.
Chen teaches the limitations by stating
based on a first natural language query (Chen pages 15-16, 29 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. natural-language query) associated with a first client device, determining, based on a first user profile (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. user security profile – B.nurse) associated with the first client device, first access rights (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. access rights - authorized access pattern/access control schemes), wherein the first access rights indicate the first client device may access a first space (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. . Hospital B);
generating, based on the first access rights, a first response (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. retrieval) using information from a first plurality of files (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. records) accessible via the first space;
based on a second natural language query associated with a second client device, determining, based on a second user profile associated with the second client device, second access rights, wherein the second access rights indicate the second client device may access the first space and a second space, wherein the first user profile does not indicate access rights to the second space (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. 5.2 Setting up Mock Users The FS-RAG retrieval architecture must dynamically restrict the set of retrieved documents based on authorization policies on user-resource attributes to protect against EHR information leakage. We created eight mock users holding different security properties due to varying combinations of user authorization attribute values (i.e. hospital organization, department, role, and affiliated research groups) (see Table 5.2). Note that A.admin refers to administrative staff involved with handling patient admissions, insurance information, and other logistical tasks, and not "root"/superuser level access. As described in Implementation (see Section 4.2), we Table 5.2: Table of user access control attributes for evaluation.
User org role dept affiliations
A.phys.neur A physician medicine C_neuro
A.phys A physician surgery
A.nurse A nurse psychiatry
A.tech.rad A technician radiology
A.admin A admin
B.phys B physician cardiology
B.nurse B nurse medicine
C.research C researcher neurology
instantiated PBAC policy decision points from JSON py-abac policies at all hospital router and leaf retrievers. On retrieval for the same clinical trend query, different mock users should receive different access control allow/deny decisions at various retriever PDP points in the retrieval hierarchy. We summarize the authorized access pattern of all eight user security profiles over the federated 3-hospital case study
in Figure 5-2, where green checkmarked boxes indicate ALLOW PBAC decisions and red x-ed boxes indicate DENY PBAC decisions for each particular PDP policy set.
…
Figure 5-2: Table of federated retriever PBAC access for all mock users (Table 5.2). Note the asymmetry between hospital policy access control schemes: hospital B grants A.nurse access to all router/department retrievers, but hospital A restricts B.nurse to only the router and admissions data. We note that PDP DENY decisions at a retriever are coarse-grained and thus squash the user’s query without propagating it down any retrievers in its subtree. For example, we observe that C.research is denied access at hospitals A and B’s router-level retriever and thus is automatically unable to access any A/B leaf retrievers. On the other hand, all Hospital A users are granted access at Hospital C’s router retriever despite exclusively A.phys.neur holding actual access to any Hospital C EHR documents at the leaf-level [as
based on a second natural language query associated with a second client device, determining, based on a second user profile (e.g. user security profile – A.nurse) associated with the second client device, second access rights (e.g. access rights - authorized access pattern/access control schemes), wherein the second access rights indicate the second client device may access the first space (e.g. Hospital B) and a second space (e.g. Hospital A ), wherein the first user profile (e.g. user security profile – B.nurse) does not indicate access rights to the second space (e.g. hospital A restricts B.nurse to only the router and admissions data)]);
generating, based on the second access rights, a second response (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. retrieval) using information from the first plurality of files (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. records) accessible via the first space and a second plurality of files accessible via the second space; and
sending, based on the first natural language query and the second natural language query, the first response (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. retrieval) to the first client device and the second response (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. retrieval) to the second client device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, in view of the teachings of PIERSON and Chen, to provide improved methods and apparatus of profiling people using computers with improved specificity in order to provide improved searching and presentation of data (PIERSON [0006]).
10. With respect to claim 2,
PIERSON further discloses causing, based on the first user profile, the first client device to be restricted from accessing the second space (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. private space).
Chen further discloses causing, based on the first user profile, the first client device to be restricted from accessing the second space (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. Fig. 5-2).
11. With respect to claim 3,
PIERSON further discloses
determining, based on the first natural language query, relevant information from the first plurality of files;
causing a large language model to process the relevant information; and
generating, based on output from the large language model, the first response (PIERSON [00146], [00187] – [00188], [00299] e.g. relevant content).
Chen further discloses
determining, based on the first natural language query, relevant information from the first plurality of files;
causing a large language model to process the relevant information; and
generating, based on output from the large language model, the first response (Chen pages 19-20, 25, 27 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. relevant documents to a query).
12. With respect to claim 5,
PIERSON further discloses
accessing, based on the first user profile and the second user profile, a database of user permissions; and
retrieving, based on the database, space identifiers associated with each user profile (PIERSON [00116] e.g. unique identifier).
Chen further discloses
accessing, based on the first user profile and the second user profile, a database of user permissions; and
retrieving, based on the database, space identifiers associated with each user profile (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. Hospitals A and/or B).
13. With respect to claim 6,
PIERSON further discloses wherein the space identifiers comprise globally unique identifiers (GUIDs) associated with logical containers having built-in security parameters (PIERSON [00116] e.g. unique identifier; access rights).
Chen further discloses wherein the space identifiers comprise globally unique identifiers (GUIDs) associated with logical containers having built-in security parameters (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. Hospitals A and/or B; access rights - authorized access pattern/access control schemes).
14. With respect to claim 8,
PIERSON further discloses
receiving, via a first client device, a first natural language query (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. elastic search, natural language processing), wherein the first client device is associated with a first user profile (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. user profile) indicating first access rights (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. access rights) to a first space (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. private space) comprising a first file, wherein the first access rights indicate the first client device may access a first plurality of portions of the first file (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. access rights);
based on the first access rights, generating, based on the first plurality of portions of the first file (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. contents), a first response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response);
receiving, via a second client device, a second natural language query (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. elastic search, natural language processing), wherein the second client device is associated with a second user profile (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. user profile) indicating second access rights (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. access rights) to a second space comprising the first file;
based on the second access rights (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. access rights), generating, based on the second plurality of portions (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. contents) of the first file, a second response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response); and
sending, based on the first natural language query and the second natural language query, the first response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response) to the first client device and the second response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response) to the second client device.
Chen further discloses
receiving, via a first client device, a first natural language query (Chen pages 15-16, 29 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. natural-language query), wherein the first client device is associated with a first user profile (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. user security profile – B.nurse) indicating first access rights (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. access rights - authorized access pattern/access control schemes) to a first space (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. . Hospital B) comprising a first file, wherein the first access rights indicate the first client device may access a first plurality of portions (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. records) of the first file;
based on the first access rights, generating, based on the first plurality of portions of the first file, a first response (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. retrieval);
receiving, via a second client device, a second natural language query (Chen pages 15-16, 29 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. natural-language query), wherein the second client device is associated with a second user profile (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. user security profile – A.nurse) indicating second access rights (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. access rights - authorized access pattern/access control schemes) to a second space (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. . Hospital A) comprising the first file, wherein the second access rights indicate the second client device may access a second plurality of portions (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. records) of the first file;
based on the second access rights, generating, based on the second plurality of portions of the first file, a second response (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. retrival); and
sending (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. retrival), based on the first natural language query and the second natural language query, the first response to the first client device and the second response to the second client device.
15. With respect to claim 9,
PIERSON further discloses wherein the first natural language query and the second natural language query are substantially similar (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. elastic search, natural language processing), and wherein the first response differs from the second response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. private space vs. public space).
Chen further discloses wherein the first natural language query and the second natural language query are substantially similar, and wherein the first response differs from the second response (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. Hospital B Vs. Hospital A).
16. With respect to claim 10,
PIERSON further discloses wherein the second space and the first space are associated with at least one of: a same source (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. private space and public space) or a same file connection.
Chen further discloses wherein the second space and the first space are associated with at least one of: a same source (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. Hospitals B & A) or a same file connection.
17. With respect to claim 11,
PIERSON further discloses wherein the first plurality of portions and the second plurality of portions at least partially overlap (PIERSON [0008], [00119] e.g. overlap).
Chen further discloses wherein the first plurality of portions and the second plurality of portions at least partially overlap (Chen page 57 e.g. overlap).
18. Claims 12-13 are same as claims 6-7 and are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
19. With respect to claim 15,
PIERSON further discloses
generate, based on first access rights (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. access rights) associated with the first client device, a first response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response) to a first natural language query (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. elastic search, natural language processing);
generate, based on second access rights (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. access rights) associated with the second client device, a second response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response) to a second natural language query (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. elastic search, natural language processing), wherein the first natural language query and the second natural language query are associated with a file; and
send the first response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response) to the first client device and the second response (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. response) to the second client device, wherein the first response and the second response are based on the file.
Chen further discloses
generate, based on first access rights (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. access rights - authorized access pattern/access control schemes) associated with the first client device, a first response (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. retrieval) to a first natural language query (Chen pages 15-16, 29 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. natural-language query);
generate, based on second access rights (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. access rights - authorized access pattern/access control schemes) associated with the second client device, a second response (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. retrieval) to a second natural language query (Chen pages 15-16, 29 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. natural-language query), wherein the first natural language query and the second natural language query are associated with a file (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. records); and
send the first response to the first client device and the second response to the second client device, wherein the first response and the second response are based on the file, and wherein the first response differs from the second response based on the first access rights and the second access rights (Chen Abstract and Fig. 5-2 e.g. hospital A restricts B.nurse to only the router and admissions data).
20. With respect to claim 16,
PIERSON further discloses
wherein the first natural language query and the second natural language query are substantially similar (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236] e.g. elastic search, natural language processing).
Chen further discloses
wherein the first natural language query and the second natural language query are substantially similar (Chen pages 15-16, 29 and Fig. 5-2 e.g. natural-language query).
21. Claims 17-19 are same as claims 10-11 and 5 and are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
22. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PIERSON in view of Chen, and further in view of FAITELSON et al (US 20170220686 A1, hereinafter “FAITELSON”).
23. With respect to claim 4,
PIERSON discloses
receiving, based on a third natural language query from the first client device, a third request for information related to the second space;
determining, based on the first user profile, that the first client device lacks access rights to the second space (PIERSON [0028] – [0032], [00236]).
Chen further discloses
receiving, based on a third natural language query from the first client device, a third request for information related to the second space;
determining, based on the first user profile, that the first client device lacks access rights to the second space (Chen page 17, pages 58-60 and Fig. 5-2).
Although PIERSON and Chen combination substantially teaches the claimed invention, they do not explicitly indicate sending, based on the lack of access rights, a notification to the first client device indicating that the requested information is not accessible.
FAITELSON teaches the limitations by stating sending, based on the lack of access rights, a notification to the first client device indicating that the requested information is not accessible (FAITELSON [0060] – [0061] e.g. [0060] In some embodiments, when and/or responsive to generation or forming of representations of objects that are inaccessible to the party a notification or alert to that effect is presented, optionally accompanied with the number of such representations. Optionally, however, representations of objects that are inaccessible to the party are not presented. [0061] In some embodiments, access right or permission to access objects respective to presentations of objects found in a search that are inaccessible to the party may be requested from respective owners of the objects. For example a request to access an object may be generated by performing an operation on a representation, such as by a right-click by a mouse or a triple click on a touch screen on the representation. Responsively, according to contact data maintained in the computerized system such as computerized system 100, the owner of the object may be notified that access to the party is requested.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, in view of the teachings of PIERSON, Chen and FAITELSON, to provide improved methods and apparatus of profiling people using computers with improved specificity in order to provide improved searching and presentation of data (PIERSON [0006]).
24. Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PIERSON in view of Chen, and further in view of Chauhan et al (US 20220407927 A1, hereinafter “Chauhan”).
25. With respect to claim 7
Although PIERSON and Chen combination substantially teaches the claimed invention, they do not explicitly indicate
generating, based on the first response and the second response, a log of accessed information;
determining, based on the log, usage patterns for the first space and the second space; and
causing, based on the usage patterns, an update to access rights for at least one of the first user profile or the second user profile.
Chauhan teaches the limitations by stating
generating, based on the first response and the second response, a log of accessed information;
determining, based on the log, usage patterns for the first space and the second space; and
causing, based on the usage patterns, an update to access rights (Chauhan [0042], [0080] – [0081] e.g. log; usage patterns; changing access rights to an account associated with the user) for at least one of the first user profile or the second user profile.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, in view of the teachings of PIERSON, Chen and Chauhan, to provide improved methods and apparatus of profiling people using computers with improved specificity in order to provide improved searching and presentation of data (PIERSON [0006]).
26. Claim 14 is same as claim 14 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
27. Claim 20 is same as claim 14 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
28. The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
29. When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJIV SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-4098. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at 571-272-4098. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SYLING YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
April 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights