DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to Application filed December 09, 2025.
Claims 1-32 are canceled. Claims 33-52 are pending.
Examiner has presented the rejections of all of the independent claims first (e.g. claims 33 and 43) followed subsequently by the rejections of the respective dependent claims.
Information Disclosure Statements
Acknowledgment is made that the information disclosure statements filed on 12/09/2025 has been received and considered by the examiner. If the applicant is aware of any prior art or any other co-pending applications not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Specification
The Specification has been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any grammatical/spelling or any other errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Remarks
In claims 33-35, 38-40, 43-45 and 48-50 recited the limitations of “at least in part”. The term at least in part has given broadest reasonable instruction as a type of data that may be maintained, accessed and provided. The limitation does not require all of the limitation to be included but merely a part of the limitation included in the claim. As such, the claim can be rejected once one the part of the limitation read by the prior art.
Objection
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: In claims 33, 42, 43 and 52 recited the limitations of “first criteria, second criteria and third criteria”. Also, in claims 43-50 recited the limitations of “input/output circuitry” and “control circuitry”. The limitations of “first criteria, second criteria, third criteria, “input/output circuitry” and “control circuitry” are not defined in the original specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 33-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 33, 42, 43 and 52 recited the limitations of “first criteria, second criteria and third criteria”. Also, in claims 43-50 recited the limitations of “input/output circuitry” and “control circuitry”. The limitations of “first criteria, second criteria, third criteria, “input/output circuitry” and “control circuitry” are not defined in the original specification. It is unclear what constitute criteria as recited in the claims. Any types of determination, user interest, search term, comparing or policies can be criteria. Further, the specification disclosed computer, which does not necessarily include input/output circuitry or control circuitry. The claim recited limitations are not disclosed in the original specification. Examiner is unable to locate these limitations in the original specification. The limitations as recited in the claims do not have support in the original specification. The claim, as best understood, has been rejected based on a teaching of the prior art.
Dependent claims are objected for incorporating the same deficiencies of their respective base claims.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 USC 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title
10. Claims 33-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, e.g. claims 33-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 33-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1. The method of claims 33-42 and system of claims 43-52 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. Prong one of the 2019 PEG:
1. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one, the limitations are directed to additional elements include computer, system and circuity.
2. The limitations are recited in claims 33 and 43 are maintaining a conversation state space for a conversational session in a conversational communication system; receiving a first conversational input to identify a plurality of content items based on a first criteria; adding first data to the conversation state space based on the first conversational input to create a first conversation state; based at least in part on the first conversation state, generating for output a first list of content items that is selected from a dataset using the first criteria of the first conversational input; receiving a second conversational input that comprises second criteria; adding second data to the conversation state space based on the second conversational input to create a second conversation state; based at least in part on the second conversation state, generating for output a second list of content items, wherein the second list of content items is selected from the dataset using both the first criteria of the first conversational input and the second criteria of the second conversational input; receiving a third conversational input that comprises third criteria that is mutually exclusive with the second criteria; adding third data to the conversation state space based on the third conversational input to create a third conversation state; and based at least in part on the third conversation state and the third criteria being mutually exclusive with the second criteria etc., is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. That is, other than reciting computer, system and circuity, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The steps can be done my nominally, insignificantly or user can perform each of the tasks merely manually and can consider as a data gathering performance.
Further, the limitations conversation state space is all about user speaking, talking, communicating each other or a communication among a user with any other network enable device. The communication can include audio, video, text or any other social network communications. The limitations first data, second data, third data, first conversational input, second conversational input or third conversation input are merely different parts/portion of the speech/talk/communications or finding data in the internet. The limitations content data can be any types of audio, video, image or any other media data. The limitations mutually exclusive can be searching and finding/selecting/identifying any internet data that is most relevant with user interest. For example a user is trying to purchase food from a restaurant, then the user searching, identifying and purchasing a particular food that they like. The limitations first, second or third criteria can be a user inputting data, looking for certain data (e.g., media data) on the website, determining whichever data is the user interested in and receiving the results. Further the limitations can interpret as merely searching, browsing data/contents (e.g., media) data in the internet or any network environments. Furthermore, the limitations can also interpret as collecting or comparing known information. Thus, the limitations are directed to abstract mental process and can be manually performed by human. If a claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with mental process grouping of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computer, system and circuity in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality or insignificant extra solution activity such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, Accordingly, these additional element (computer, system and circuity) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B.
Claims 33 and 43 recited additional limitations, such that generating for output a third list of content items, wherein the third list of content items is selected from the dataset using both the first criteria of the first conversational input and the third criteria of the third conversational input and not using the second criteria of the second conversational input. These limitations are a context which encompasses when user searching, identifying/selecting, querying content items (e.g., searching in the web, you tube or any other app), finding relevant content items, and retrieving only those results which they have based own interest, discarding/deleting/removing/rejecting results which they do not like. The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality, they are directed to extra solution activity or they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner (MPEP § 2106.05(f); MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data (e.g. Symantec...;TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...; Storing and retrieving information in memory (e.g. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc..). Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer function merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by human thinking. Using generic computing components (e.g., computer, system and circuity) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract and is not enough to transform an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible. Further, the subject matter can also interpret as well-understood, routine and conventional functions (e.g., electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document/object, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank….). There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. They are merely collective functions provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 34 and 35 recited the limitations of text phrases, vector representation, nodes, weighted edges and access data structure. These limitations are describing media data, shape/structure of the data, network computer, performing relationship among the computers. The limitations are description of media data and manipulating the data with any device. The limitations are abstract mental process. Dependent claims 36-38 recited the limitations are search history, intent analysis of the first conversational input, simultaneously generating output list of content items, output based on the first intent analysis of the first conversational input. These limitations are describing searching again and again, identifying/finding content data that has user interest. The limitations are abstract mental process. Dependent claims 39 and 40 recited the limitations are second intent analysis, simultaneously generating third intent analysis of the third conversational input. The limitations are describing user have different interest while searching and receiving results by multiple searches. The limitations are abstract mental process. Dependent claims 41 and 42 recited the limitations of first, second and third conversational input via user interface, mutually exclusive with the second criteria indicates that filtering the dataset based on second or third criteria, result in an empty set. The limitations are describing searching via user interface, perming multiple search using different search term, removing certain term or search result and receiving the results. The limitations are abstract mental process. Claims 44-52 correspond in scope to claims 34-42 and are similarly rejected. The claim recited limitations do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. As such, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Double Patenting
11. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
12. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 33-52, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-16 of US Patent 12,436,983 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of following reasons:
US Patent 12,436,983 B2 contain(s) every element of claims 33-52 of the instant application 19/319233 and thus anticipate or obvious the claim(s) of the instant application. The subject matter contains of the instant application claims (i.e. claims 33-52) contains same or similar limitations as US Patent 12,436,983 B2 (i.e. claims 1-16). Claims of the instant application 19/319,233, therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claim 1 (from US Patent 12,436,983 B2) to arrive at the claim 1 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
13. Claim 33-52, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-50 of US Patent 10,031,968 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of following reasons:
US Patent 10,031,968 B2 contain(s) every element of claims 33-52 of the instant application 19/319233 and thus anticipate or obvious the claim(s) of the instant application. The subject matter contains of the instant application claims (i.e. claims 33-52) contains same or similar limitations as US Patent 10,031,968 B2 (i.e. claims 1-50). Claims of the instant application 19/319233, therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claim 1 (from US Patent 10,031,968 B2) to arrive at the claim 1 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Claim 33-52, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of US Patent 10,949,453 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of following reasons:
US Patent 10,949,453 B2 B2 contain(s) every element of claims 33-52 of the instant application 19/319233 and thus anticipate or obvious the claim(s) of the instant application. The subject matter contains of the instant application claims (i.e. claims 33-52) contains same or similar limitations as US Patent 10,949,453 B2 (i.e. claims 1-18). Claims of the instant application 19/319233, therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claim 1 (from US Patent 10,061,807 B2) to arrive at the claim 1 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Claim 33-52, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of US Patent 11,544,310 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of following reasons:
US Patent 11,544,310 B2 contain(s) every element of claims 33-52 of the instant application 19/319233 and thus anticipate or obvious the claim(s) of the instant application. The subject matter contains of the instant application claims (i.e. claims 33-52) contains same or similar limitations as US Patent 19/319233 B2 (i.e. claims 1-20). Claims of the instant application 19/319233, therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claim 1 (from US Patent 10,474,674 B2) to arrive at the claim 1 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a 35 patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION F£)R REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
The dependent claims are anticipated or obvious by the species of the patented invention. Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim). This court's predecessor has held that, without a terminal disclaimer, the species claims preclude issuance of the generic application. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761,767 (CCPA 1982); Schneller, 397 F.2d at 354. Accordingly, absent a terminal disclaimer. The dependent claims were properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting." (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993).
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Claims 33-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Boerries et al. (US 2009/0234814 A1: Filing date 04/01/2008), hereinafter Boerries in view of Palay (US 2013/0218896 A1), hereinafter Palay.
As for claim 33, Boerries teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: maintaining a conversation state space for a conversational session in a conversational communication system (see [0003], mobile computing devices communicate via voice message);
receiving a first conversational input to identify a plurality of content items based on a first criteria (see [0025], e.g., audio or video communication can be done using content data processing source, [0120], request include desired user’s criteria);
adding first data to the conversation state space based on the first conversational input to create a first conversation state (see [0007], e.g., the user search terms and the user's actual interests (e.g. criteria’s), [0026], e.g., a mobile user's input with a first set of metadata derived from the context of the input, including location information to match the request and rank);
based at least in part on the first conversation state, generating for output a first list of content items that is selected from a dataset using the first criteria of the first conversational input (see [0026], [0027], e.g., content objects are displayed on a mobile device. For each content object selected by a user, one or more entities or entity types are determined to correlate to the selected content object. Based on the determined entity or entity type, an information feed is created);
receiving a second conversational input that comprises second criteria; adding second data to the conversation state space based on the second conversational input to create a second conversation state (see [0027], e.g., user incorporate the information feed into the user's home page or device and automatically receive updates based on the web page or information corresponding to the content object, entity or associated information sources);
based at least in part on the second conversation state, generating for output a second list of content items, wherein the second list of content items is selected from the dataset using both the first criteria of the first conversational input and the second criteria of the second conversational input (see [0028], e.g., based on the determined entity or entity type, an information feed is created. The user incorporate the information feed into the user's home page or device and automatically receive updates based on the web page or information corresponding to the search result or information resource when users annotate results to cause the future inclusion of that source, result, or search type in their mobile home page);
receiving a third conversational input that comprises third….that is mutually exclusive with the second criteria (see [0119], e.g., advertisers or publishers, and permit advertisers or publishers to perform one or more of the following such as specialized content can be any form of new, updated or exclusive content marketed to the user by an owner, publisher or content retailer, [0120], e.g., request include desired target user criteria);
adding third data to the conversation state space based on the third conversational input to create a third conversation state (see [0030], e.g., user's communications on the user's mobile device(s), along with the preferences and activities that the user performs in configuring, consuming, interacting with, and sharing content, as well as the contexts in which and the people with whom the user performs these actions, provide information to advertisers about the user's interests and intentions, [0121], e.g., mobile homepage manager tracks user content, configuration and interaction with the user's mobile home page or other selected web page including spoken, tactile and sensed inputs);
and based at least in part on the third conversation state and the….criteria being mutually exclusive with the second criteria (see [0004], e.g., communications via cellular phones, [0123], e.g., user has added pizza restaurant as an entity to one place, receive updates such as special promotions, recent reviews, grand openings or any other content, feed or source of information relevant to the entity in the vicinity of the potential target user's current location, home, work or other locations of interest, e.g., regularly visited cities, locations designated of interest by the user, etc.);
generating for output a third list of content items, wherein the third list of content items is selected from the dataset using both the first criteria of the first conversational input and the…. criteria of the third conversational input and not using the second criteria of the second conversational input (see [0110], e.g., content objects and feeds for a given entity also be dynamically altered (i.e., removed, reordered, transcoded into different media types, etc.) based on preferences or actions, [0111], e.g., mobile phone user interactively remove, raise or lower of any entity or content on the list).
Boerries teaches claimed invention including the limitations of criteria that is mutually exclusive ([0119]). Boerries does not explicitly teach the limitations of “third criteria or the third criteria”. In the same field of endeavor, Palay teaches the limitations of ““third criteria or the third criteria” (see Palay, [0029], e.g., conversation topic include additional criteria).
Boerries and Palay both references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are from the same field of endeavor, such as communications among users using mobile device or internet enables devices, speaking, saving and retrieving data. Perform queries, categorize searches and receiving results in which they are interested.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Palay’s teaching to Boerries’s system a user to switch between conversation-based searching and message-based searching. Thus, the user can desire to perform some searches that employ either conversation-based searching or message-based searching or a combination of both without unnecessarily duplicating data structures such as indexes. Employing the conversation-based searching and message-based searching can reduce the processing and storage resources that are required for storing and retrieving information in the index for the conversation (see Palay, [0010]).
As for claim 43,
The limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 33 because claim 42 is a system claim for implementing the steps as recited in claim 33. Therefore, claim 42 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 33.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Palay’s teaching to Boerries’s system a user to switch between conversation-based searching and message-based searching. Thus, the user can desire to perform some searches that employ either conversation-based searching or message-based searching or a combination of both without unnecessarily duplicating data structures such as indexes. Employing the conversation-based searching and message-based searching can reduce the processing and storage resources that are required for storing and retrieving information in the index for the conversation (see Palay, [0010]).
As to claim 34, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Boerries and Palay teaches:
further comprising: selecting the first list of content items based at least in part on identifying a set of text-phrases associated with the first conversational input and computing at least one vector representation based on the set of text-phrases (see Boerries, [0025], [0139]).
As to claim 35, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Boerries and Palay teaches:
further comprising: accessing a data structure that comprises a plurality of nodes and a plurality of weighted edges between pairs of nodes of the plurality of nodes; and wherein the selecting is further based at least in part on identifying a relationship between the at least one vector representation based on the set of text-phrases and the accessed data structure (see Boerries, [0058], [0133]).
As to claim 36, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Boerries and Palay teaches:
wherein the selecting the first list of content items is further based on a user search history (see Boerries, [0025]).
As to claim 37, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Boerries and Palay teaches:
wherein the selecting the first list of content items is further based on first intent analysis of the first conversational input (see Boerries, [0030]).
As to claim 38, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Boerries and Palay teaches:
further comprising: simultaneously with the generating for output the first list of content items: generating for display conversation output referencing the first list of content items, wherein the conversation output is based at least in part on the first intent analysis of the first conversational input (see Boerries, [0080]).
As to claim 39, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Boerries and Palay teaches:
wherein the selected the second list of content items is further based on second intent analysis of the second conversational input, the method further comprising: simultaneously with the generating for output the second list of content items: generating for display conversation output referencing the second list of content items, wherein the conversation output is based at least in part on the second intent analysis of the second conversational input (see Boerries, [0004], [0050]).
As to claim 40, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Boerries and Palay teaches:
wherein the selecting the third list of content items is further based on third intent analysis of the third conversational input, the method further comprising: simultaneously with the generating for output the third list of content items: generating for display conversation output referencing the third list of content items, wherein the conversation output is based at least in part on the third intent analysis of the third conversational input (see Boerries, [0004], [0050], [0080]).
As to claim 41, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Boerries and Palay teaches:
wherein: the first conversational input is received via a user interface as part of a conversation between a user and the conversational communication system; the second conversational input is received via the user interface as part of the conversation between the user and the conversational communication system; the third conversational input is received via the user interface as part of the conversation between the user and the conversational communication system (see Boerries, [0004], [0050], [0090]).
As to claim 42, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Boerries and Palay teaches:
wherein: the third criteria being mutually exclusive with the second criteria indicates that filtering the dataset based on the second criteria and the third criteria would result in an empty set (see Boerries, [0007], [0110], ).
Claims 44-52 corresponds in scope to claims 34-42 and are similarly rejected.
Prior Arts
17. US 2006/0080107 A1 teaches a user clicks or otherwise selects a "more like this" or other alternative search extension or refinement, the search service update the set of search results to present only those with PDF files, image files, Web pages whose title contains the search terms, or other selected attributes. Users focus or refine their search activity to potential sources having characteristics most closely matching their search intent ([0007]).
US 2008/0071452 A1 teaches an audio stream is converted to a stream of phonemes. The stream of phonemes is filtered according to a list of popular phoneme strings. A weighting is computed for the content based on at least one popular phoneme combination occurring in the stream of phonemes. The content is indexed based on the weighting ([0005]).
EP2907022 A2 teaches turning on a filter to show only five-star rated products on a web site. At the other end of this spectrum of factors requiring multistep information retrieval, is the case where the matches are too few, from a choice perspective. User would broaden the intent by specifying broadening filters (e.g. turning on a filter that includes third party vendor products too in the search results on a commerce site) ([0006]).
Additional prior arts: US 8417649, US 8219628, US 8583654, US 8457967, US 8122061. US 8577671, US 9946757, US 20080240379, EP2994908B1, WO2014182771A1, US 8078884, US 8635240, US 8073860, US 20070266026, US 20100241625, US 7739280, US 7835998, US 8073848, US 20070276773, US 20070276821, US 8886645, US 20090100047, US 20050055210, US 20050125224 teaches the claim recited limitations. These references are state of the art at the time of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
18. The examiner suggests, in response to this Office action, support being 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 because:
a. 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) requires antecedent basis in the Specification or original disclosure for any new language, including terms and phrases, added to the claims;
and because:
b. 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) requires the Drawings to illustrate or show all claimed features.
Applicant must clearly point out the patentable novelty that they think the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made, and must also explain how the amendments avoid the references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c).
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider each of the cited references in entirety
as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage disclosed by the examiner.
19. The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action (see MPEP § 7.96).
Contact Information
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Daniel A Kuddus whose telephone number is (571) 270-1722. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday 8.00 a.m.-5.30 p.m. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays from 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Boris Gorney can be reached on (571) 270-5626. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing 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 the either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information fo70r 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.
/DANIEL A KUDDUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
07/24/26
Prosecution Insights