Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
2. The amendment filed on October 14, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-29 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-3, 13-17, and 27-29 have been amended.
The applicant argues that the amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections for claim 1, 3-14, and 16-20. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. The limitation in the preamble is simply intended use (a general-purpose computer for training). The added of the amended limitations is also insufficient to overcome the 101 because the model used for training is not used in a practical application in the claim. The claims are still directed to human activity using a machine for general purpose and is therefore non-statutory.
The applicant argues that the prior art of record does not disclose the amended limitations. The examiner agrees with this assertion.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 1-29 have been considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, these rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “A method for inputting text on an electronic device, the method comprising:…” as drafted, covers a mental process, as this could be done by mentally or by hand with pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites “A method for inputting text on an electronic device…”. This limitation directs towards using a computer for the method, and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, “obtaining a set of glyphs units of the at least one word” should not be considered as an additional element which is significantly more than the abstract idea. The addition of the generic computer components recited above with regard to claim 1 do not amount to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations “An electronic device, comprising: a memory configured to store instructions: and a processor configured to execute the instructions to:…” as drafted, covers a mental process, as this could be done by mentally or by hand with pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 15 recites “An electronic device, comprising: a memory configured to store instructions: and a processor…”. This limitation directs towards using a computer for the method, and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, “obtaining glyph units of the at least one word” should not be considered as an additional element which is significantly more than the abstract idea. The addition of the generic computer components recited above with regard to claim 14 do not amount to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 29, the limitations “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that is executable by one or more processor to perform a method for inputting text on an electronic device, the method comprising…” as drafted, covers a mental process, as this could be done by mentally or by hand with pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 29 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that is executable by one or more processor to perform a method for inputting text on an electronic device…”. This limitation directs towards using a computer for the method, and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, “obtaining glyph units of the at least one word” should not be considered as an additional element which is significantly more than the abstract idea. The addition of the generic computer components recited above with regard to claim 20 do not amount to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kang (U.S. Publication No. 20210365640) teaches method and apparatus for customizing natural language processing model. Nguyen (U.S. Publication No. 20230044266) teaches machine learning method and named entity recognition apparatus. Reisswig (U.S. Publication No. 20210383067) teaches data-driven structure extraction from text documents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN DANIEL KIM whose telephone number is (571) 272-1405. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Richemond Dorvil can be reached on (571) 272-7602. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ETHAN DANIEL KIM/
Examiner, Art Unit 2658
/RICHEMOND DORVIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights