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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the RCE filed on April 30, 2026. Claims 1, 12 and 20 have been amended. Claims 9 and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20 are pending in this office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 12 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite “negtive”. This should be corrected to recite “negative”.
Claim 1 recites phrase “a pre-constructed knowledge base”, however claims 2 and 4 recite “the knowledge base”. The “the knowledge base” in claims 2 and 4 should be corrected to recite “the pre-constructed knowledge base”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process/mathematical concepts) without significant more.
Regarding claim 1, in Step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites a method for training a search model, the method performed by one or more computers. A method is considered a process and is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In Step 2a Pong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process/mathematical concept but for recitation of generic computer components:
“determining … based on a pre-constructed knowledge base, additional query information associated with the sample query information” (A person can mentally evaluate the query information and make a judgement to determine additional associated query information (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))).
“determining, based on the sample query information and a first sample in the first sample data set, a first probability that the first sample is a hit for the sample query information” (A person can mentally evaluate a sample data set and a query information, and make a judgement to determine a probability (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))).
“determining, based on the sample query information and a second sample in the second sample data set, a second probability that the second sample is a hit for the sample query information” (A person can mentally evaluate a sample data set and a query information, and make a judgement to determine a probability (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))).
“defining a first loss function based on the first probability, wherein the first loss function is in a form of cross entropy” (Defining a first loss function is a mathematical concept in view of the applicant’s specification, see paragraph 0049 and equation 1 (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))).
“defining a second loss function based on the first probability and the second probability” (Defining a second loss function is a mathematical concept in view of the applicant’s specification, see paragraph 0051 and equation 2 (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))).
“defining a target loss function based on a weighted average operation of the first loss function and the second loss function” (Defining a target loss function is a mathematical concept in view of the applicant’s specification, see paragraph 0055 and equation 5 (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))).
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process and mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls under the mental process and mathematical concept groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
In Step 2a Prong 2 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
“A method for training a search model, the method performed by one or more computers, the method comprising:” (Computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
“by one or more computers” (Computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to merely apply the exception using generic computer as a tool (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
“obtaining, by one or more computers, based on sample query information, a first sample data set for training the search model, wherein one or more images associated with the sample query information are determined based on the search model, wherein the first sample data set is a positive sample data set, and wherein the first sample data set comprises one or more images” (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
Obtaining, by one or more computers, based on the additional query information, a second sample data set for training the search model, wherein the second sample data set is different from the first sample data set, wherein the second sample data set is a negative sample data set, and the second sample data set comprises one or more images” (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
“training, by one or more computers, the search model based on the sample query information, the first sample data set, and the second sample data set, wherein training the search model comprises” (Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
“optimizing the search model based on the target loss function” (Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
The claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In Step 2b of the 101 analysis set forth in 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, additional element (viii) recites computers at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to merely apply the exception using generic computer as a tool. Additional elements (vii), (xi), and (xii) recites mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computers which are not indicative of significantly more. Further additional elements (ix) and (x) recite insignificant extra solution activities, which are not indicative of significant more. Further, these elements recite steps that are receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been determined by the courts to recite a well understood, routine, and conventional activity which is not indicative of significantly more (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362). Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Additionally, new limitations that fall within Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 analysis recite, under the broadest reasonably interpretation, the following abstract idea:
“determining, … the additional query information associated with the sample query information comprises: … determining, from the knowledge graph, an additional keyword having a connection relationship with the keyword” (A person can mentally evaluate a keyword in a knowledge graph and make a judgement to determine another related keyword (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))).
“determining the additional query information based on the additional keyword” (A person can mentally evaluate a keyword and make a judgement to determine additional query information (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))).
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls under the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
In Step 2a Prong 2 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
“wherein the knowledge base is a knowledge graph” (Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
“obtaining a keyword in the sample query information” (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
The claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In Step 2b of the 101 analysis set forth in 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, additional element (iii) recites generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field. Additional element (iv) recites insignificant extra solution activities, which is not indicative of significant more. Further, additional element (iv) recites steps that are receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been determined by the courts to recite a well understood, routine, and conventional activity which is not indicative of significantly more (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362). Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, it is dependent upon claim 2, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 2. Additionally, new limitations that fall within Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 analysis recite, under the broadest reasonably interpretation, the following abstract idea:
“determining the additional keyword from the knowledge graph comprises: determining a superordinate node of a key node corresponding to the keyword in the knowledge graph” (A person can mentally evaluate the nodes in a knowledge graph and make a judgement to determine a superordinate node corresponding to a keyword (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))).
“determining a keyword corresponding to the at least one node as the additional keyword” (A person can mentally evaluate a node and make a judgement to determine additional keyword from the node (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))).
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls under the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
In Step 2a Prong 2 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
“wherein the knowledge graph comprises a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges to connect the plurality of nodes, the plurality of edges are for representing a relationship between the plurality of nodes” (Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“obtaining, based on an edge in the plurality of edges that is connected to the superordinate node, at least one node associated with the superordinate node, wherein the at least one node is different from the key node” (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
The claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In Step 2b of the 101 analysis set forth in 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, additional element (iii) recites generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field. Additional element (iv) recites insignificant extra solution activities, which is not indicative of significant more. Further, additional element (iv) recites steps that are receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been determined by the courts to recite a well understood, routine, and conventional activity which is not indicative of significantly more (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362). Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, it is dependent upon claim 3, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 3. Additionally, new limitations that fall within Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 analysis recite, under the broadest reasonably interpretation, the following abstract idea:
“determining a path distance between the keyword and the additional keyword, wherein the path distance is a quantity of edges between the keyword and the additional keyword” (A person can mentally evaluate two keyword in a knowledge graph, and make a judgement to determine the path distance, which is the number of edges connect (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))).
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls under the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, it is dependent upon claim 4, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 4. Further, claim 5 recites “obtaining the second sample data set based on the additional query information in response to the path distance being less than or equal to a path distance threshold” (In step 2A prong 2, this recites adding insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g))) which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. In Step 2B, this recites steps that are receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been determined by the courts to recite a well understood, routine, and conventional activity which is not indicative of significantly more (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362)).
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Additionally, new limitations that fall within Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 analysis recite, under the broadest reasonably interpretation, the following abstract idea:
“in response to the first probability being less than or equal to the second probability, optimizing parameters of the search model to update the first probability and the second probability to obtain updated first probability and updated second probability, wherein the updated first probability is greater than the updated second probability” (Optimizing parameters in a model are mathematical concept in view of the applicant’s specification, see paragraph 0049-0056 (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))).
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls under the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, it is dependent upon claim 2, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 2. Further, claim 7 recites “the keyword is an entity word or a modifier of the entity word.” (In step 2A prong 2, this recites generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. In Step 2B, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of significantly more).
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, it is dependent upon claim 1, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 8 recites “the first sample data set and the second sample data set are both image data sets” (In step 2A prong 2, this recites generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. In Step 2B, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of significantly more).
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, in Step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites a method for searching a target object. A method is considered a process and is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In Step 2a Pong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components:
“determining…a probability that each of the plurality of candidate target objects is a hit for the user query information” (A person can mentally evaluate all the candidates target objects and make a judgement to determine whether they are a hit base on their probability (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))).
“determining, as the target object, a candidate target object with a probability exceeding a probability threshold.” (A person can mentally evaluate candidate target objects’ probability and make a judgement to determine an object with a probability that exceed a threshold (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))).
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls under the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
In Step 2a Prong 2 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
“obtaining a plurality of candidate target objects based on received user query information” (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
“a target user determination model trained” (Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
The claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In Step 2b of the 101 analysis set forth in 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, additional element (iii) recites insignificant extra solution activities, which is not indicative of significant more. The additional element (iii) recites steps that are receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been determined by the courts to recite a well understood, routine, and conventional activity which is not indicative of significantly more (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362). Further, additional element (iv) recites mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computers which are not indicative of significantly more.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, it is dependent upon claim 10, and thereby incorporates the limitations of, and corresponding analysis applied to claim 10. Further, claim 11 recites “the target object is an image.” (In step 2A prong 2, this recites generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. In Step 2B, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of significantly more).
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, it recites similar limitations as recited in claim 1 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as an electronic device and is rejected under the similar rationale as set forth hereinabove for claim 1. Claim 12 further recites additional elements of “An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory having instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to perform operations comprising” (Under step 2A prong II and step 2B, Device, processor and memory are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 13-18, they recite similar limitations as recited in claims 2-7 except that they set forth the claimed invention as an electronic device and are rejected under the similar rationale as set forth hereinabove for claims 2-7.
Regarding claim 20, it recites similar limitations as recited in claim 1 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a non-transitory computer-readable medium and is rejected under the similar rationale as set forth hereinabove for claim 1. Claim 20 further recites additional elements of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with a computer program stored thereon, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations comprising:” (Under step 2A prong II and step 2B, Computer readable storage medium and a processor are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 USC 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claims 1, 12, and 20 are not directed toward an abstract idea under Step 2A, because it recites a concrete technological improvement in how image search models are trained and operated.
In response to the preceding arguments examiner respectfully submits that claims recite abstract ideas such as “determining … based on a pre-constructed knowledge base, additional query information associated with the sample query information” (A person can mentally evaluate the query information and make a judgement to determine additional associated query information (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))), “determining, based on the sample query information and a first sample in the first sample data set, a first probability that the first sample is a hit for the sample query information” (A person can mentally evaluate a sample data set and a query information, and make a judgement to determine a probability (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))), “determining, based on the sample query information and a second sample in the second sample data set, a second probability that the second sample is a hit for the sample query information” (A person can mentally evaluate a sample data set and a query information, and make a judgement to determine a probability (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))), “defining a first loss function based on the first probability, wherein the first loss function is in a form of cross entropy” (Defining a first loss function is a mathematical concept in view of the applicant’s specification, see paragraph 0049 and equation 1 (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))), “defining a second loss function based on the first probability and the second probability” (Defining a second loss function is a mathematical concept in view of the applicant’s specification, see paragraph 0051 and equation 2 (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))) and “defining a target loss function based on a weighted average operation of the first loss function and the second loss function” (Defining a target loss function is a mathematical concept in view of the applicant’s specification, see paragraph 0055 and equation 5 (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))). Since these claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitations as a mental process and mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components, they falls under the mental process and mathematical concept groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Further the amended limitations recite “obtaining, by one or more computers, based on sample query information, a first sample data set for training the search model, wherein one or more images associated with the sample query information are determined based on the search model, wherein the first sample data set is a positive sample data set, and wherein the first sample data set comprises one or more images” and “Obtaining, by one or more computers, based on the additional query information, a second sample data set for training the search model, wherein the second sample data set is different from the first sample data set, wherein the second sample data set is a negative sample data set, and the second sample data set comprises one or more images”, and these amended limitations are additional limitations however they are insignificant extra-solution activities of mere data gathering. These insignificant extra solution activities of mere data gathering are well understood, routine, and conventional activities which are not indicative of significantly more. See Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362. Further, in remarks, applicant’s representative point to applicant’s specification paragraph 0024 which states “an inversion pair learning manner is used to accelerate a convergence speed of a retrieval solution and improve the prediction accuracy thereof”. However, it remains unclear from the claimed limitations how these improvements are being achieved by the additional limitations in the claims. Since the claims do not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejections are being maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Usmaan Saeed whose telephone number is (571)272-4046. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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 Director, David Wiley can be reached at 571-272-3923. 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.
/USMAAN SAEED/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2146
Prosecution Insights