DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 14-17, and 19-21 have been examined.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 14-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See M.P.E.P. § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: The methods for carrying out the following limitation:
combining, by computer, the question-and-answer image and the question-and-answer text to obtain question-and-answer material
Note that the prior limitations discuss the images and the texts in the plural and this limitation discusses “the” image and “the” text in the singular without indicating how the selection of individuals occurs. Further, there is no discussion in the Specification of how the combination is made.
This limitation appears in the independent claims and is incorporated by reference to the dependent claims.
Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The invention, as taught in Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 14-17, and 19-21, is directed to “mental steps” and “mathematical steps” without significantly more.
The claims recite:
• clustering acquired to-be-identified materials
• performing corpus-processing on the question-and- answer material
• the question-and-answer corpus pair comprising at least one question and an answer to each question of the at least one question
• performing title determination on the question-and- answer corpus pair
Claim 1
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “1. A method for entering information, the method comprising…” Therefore, it is a “method” (or “process”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 1 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 1 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• clustering…to-be-identified images that meet a text question-and-answer condition in the to-be-identified images to obtain a question-and-answer text (i.e., mental steps)
• clustering…to-be-identified texts that meet a text question-and-answer condition in the to-be-identified texts to obtain a question-and-answer text (i.e., mental steps)
• combining…the question-and-answer image and the question-and-answer text to obtain question-and-answer material (i.e., mental steps)
• performing…corpus-processing on the question-and-answer image and the question-and-answer text (i.e., mental steps)
• the question-and-answer corpus pair comprising at least one question and an answer to each question of the at least one question (i.e., mental steps)
• performing…title determination on the question-and- answer corpus pair (i.e., mental steps)
• searching…in response to receiving search information, to obtain a title and an answer corresponding to the search information (i.e., mental steps)
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “storing” of “the at least one title and an answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title in a structured manner”
(2) A “computer”
(3) An “acquiring” of “to-be-identified materials from an electronic resource of a question-asking community in real time”
(4) An “outputting, through a graphical user interface, the title and answer corresponding to the search information”
(5) A “character recognition technology”
A “storing” of “the at least one title and an answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title in a question bank in a structured manner” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
This “storing” of “the at least one title and an answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title in a question bank in a structured manner” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “computer” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
This “computer” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “acquiring” of “to-be-identified materials from an electronic resource of a question-asking community in real time” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f)(2) recites in part:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
This “acquiring” of “to-be-identified materials from an electronic resource of a question-asking community in real time” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “outputting, through a graphical user interface, the title and answer corresponding to the search information” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f)(2) recites in part:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
This “outputting, through a graphical user interface, the title and answer corresponding to the search information” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “character recognition technology” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f)(2) recites in part:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
This “character recognition technology” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “storing” of “the at least one title and an answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title in a question bank in a structured manner”
(2) A “computer”
(3) An “acquiring” of “to-be-identified materials from an electronic resource of a question-asking community in real time”
(4) An “outputting, through a graphical user interface, the title and answer corresponding to the search information”
(5) A “character recognition technology”
A “storing” of “the at least one title and an answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title in a question bank in a structured manner” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “computer” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “acquiring” of “to-be-identified materials from an electronic resource of a question-asking community in real time” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f)(2) recites in part:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
An “outputting, through a graphical user interface, the title and answer corresponding to the search information” is a broad term which is described at a high level.
Further, since the “outputting, through a graphical user interface” is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the outputting, through a graphical user interface to produce a result is not eligible. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Applicant's GUI is generic, well-understood, routine, and conventional. Applicant's Specification, paragraph [0110] recites:
[0110] The systems and technologies described herein may be implemented in a computing system (e.g., as a data server) that includes back-end components, or a computing system (e.g., an application server) that includes middleware components, or a computing system (for example, a user computer with a graphical user interface or a web browser, through which the user may interact with the embodiments of the systems and technologies described herein) that includes front-end components, or a computing system that includes any combination of such back-end components, middleware components, or front-end components. The components of the system may be interconnected by any form or medium of digital data communication (e.g., a communication network). Examples of the communication network include: local area network (LAN), wide area network (WAN), and Internet.
Simply using the GUI to produce a result is not eligible.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
A “character recognition technology” is a broad term which is described at a high level.
Further, since the “character recognition technology” is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the character recognition technology to produce a result is not eligible. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claimed “character recognition technology” is well-understood, routine and conventional. Applicant's Specification, paragraph [0096] recites:
[0096] In some optional implementations of the present embodiment, the question-and-answer material includes: a question-and-answer image, and the processing unit 402 includes: a removing module (not shown in the figure), a correction module (not shown in the figure), a processing module (not shown in the figure). The removing module may be configured to remove regional noise in the question-and- answer image to obtain a noise-free image. The correction module may be configured to correct, in response to image information in the noise-free image having an inclination angle, the image information in the noise-free image to obtain a corrected image. The processing module may be configured to perform layout cutting, character recognition, and character sorting on the corrected image sequentially, to obtain the question-and-answer corpus pair.
Simply using the processor to perform a mental task of character recognition to produce a result is not eligible.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites:
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the question bank comprises titles and answers corresponding to the titles respectively, and the method further comprises:
processing, by computer, the titles in the question bank to obtain respective retrieval titles;
acquiring, by computer, the search information; and
searching, by computer, for the title and the answer corresponding to the search information in the question bank, based on the retrieval titles, comprising performing a similarity comparison between a retrieval title and the search information according to threshold criteria, and thereby determining whether the title and the answer to the title corresponding to the retrieval title in the question bank are the title and the answer corresponding to the search information.
Applicant’s Claim 2 merely teaches mental steps of (1) obtaining respective retrieval titles, (2) acquiring search information, (3) searching for a title and an answer, (4) performing a similarity comparison, and (5) determining whether the title and the answer to the title corresponding to the retrieval title in the question bank are the title and the answer corresponding to the search information. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 2 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites:
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein clustering comprises:
determining whether a question in the question-and-answer material was answered based on obtaining, via processing the to-be-identified images and the to-be-identified texts, information from a different user which is associated with the said question, said information having semantic content indicating that the question is answered.
Applicant’s Claim 3 merely teaches the mental steps of: determining whether a question in the question-and-answer material was answered.
It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 3 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites:
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the performing, by computer, corpus- processing on the question-and-answer image and the question-and-answer text to obtain a question-and-answer corpus pair comprises:
removing, by computer, regional noise in the question-and-answer image to obtain a noise-free image;
correcting, by computer, in response to image information in the noise-free image having an inclination angle, the image information in the noise-free image to obtain a corrected image, comprising performing image processing on the image information which adjusts the inclination angle; and
performing, by computer, layout cutting, character recognition, and character sorting on the corrected image sequentially, to obtain the question-and-answer corpus pair, wherein the layout cutting comprises separately cutting a part of the corrected image in which a formula is located,
the character recognition comprises performing feature extraction to recognize different lines, and mapping a formula in different lines to a formula library through fuzzy matching, and
the character sorting comprises sorting the formula for display separate to an original sequence of paragraphs which are cut in the layout cutting.
Applicant’s Claim 5 merely teaches a series of mental steps. Starting with the claimed “layout cutting,” Applicant's Specification recites:
[0067] 1) Layout cutting, where the corrected image (or an uncorrected noise-free image) is divided into paragraphs and cut into different lines; a part, in which a formula is located, in the corrected image (or uncorrected noise-free image) is separately cut.
Note that the claimed “layout cutting” is simply editing a document into paragraphs and lines. This “layout cutting” is purely a mental step. Further, the claimed “character recognition,” and “character sorting” are also mental steps.
Applicant's Specification, paragraph [0064] discusses “removing regional noise in the question-and-answer image” as follows:
[0064] In this optional implementation, removing regional noise in the question-and-answer image includes: removing noise in a fuzzy area, "space" in the question and the answer, and removing an unrecognizable pattern in the question-and-answer image, etc.
Note that one of the methods for “removing regional noise in the question-and-answer image” includes removing an “unrecognizable pattern” which includes the mental step of spelling correction. The list is also open ended because of the “etc.” at the end and, therefore, includes other mental processes.
Applicant also claims the mental step of: “correcting, in response to image information in the noise-free image having an inclination angle, the image information in the noise-free image to obtain a corrected image”. The human being is able to mentally rotate things in the mind and is able to read documents that are presented at an incline.
Further, the claim comprises “performing feature extraction” (i.e., mental steps), “mapping a formula in different lines to a formula library” (i.e., mental steps), and “sorting the formula” (i.e., mental steps)
It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 5 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites:
6. The method according to claim 1, wherein performing title determination on the question-and-answer corpus pair to obtain at least one title and an answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title, comprises:
selecting, by computer, the at least one question from the question-and-answer corpus pair;
inputting, by computer, the selected at least one question into a trained title recognition model to obtain at least one title output by the title recognition model, the title recognition model being used to perform title determination on the input at least one question; and
selecting, by computer, for each title in the at least one title, an answer to the title from the question-and-answer corpus pair.
Applicant’s Claim 6 merely teaches input data and the mental steps of selecting a question and selecting an answer. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 6 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites:
7. The method according to claim 1, wherein storing into the electronic question bank the at least one title and an answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title in a structured manner, comprises:
performing, by computer, structuring processing on the at least one title and the answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title, to obtain at least one title- answer group to be stored;
comparing, by computer, each title-answer group to be stored in the at least one title-answer group to be stored with a title-answer group of title-answer groups in the question bank; and
storing, by computer, into the question bank, a title-answer group to be stored that is different from any one of title-answer groups in the question bank.
Applicant’s Claim 7 merely teaches storing data and the mental steps of obtaining “at least one title-answer group” and comparing data. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 7 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 8
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “8. An apparatus for entering information, the apparatus comprising…” Therefore, it is an “apparatus,” which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 8 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 8 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• clustering…to-be-identified images that meet a text question-and-answer condition in the to-be-identified images to obtain a question-and-answer text (i.e., mental steps)
• clustering…to-be-identified texts that meet a text question-and-answer condition in the to-be-identified texts to obtain a question-and-answer text (i.e., mental steps)
• combining…the question-and-answer image and the question-and-answer text to obtain question-and-answer material (i.e., mental steps)
• performing…corpus-processing on the question-and-answer image and the question-and-answer text (i.e., mental steps)
• the question-and-answer corpus pair comprising at least one question and an answer to each question of the at least one question (i.e., mental steps)
• performing…title determination on the question-and- answer corpus pair (i.e., mental steps)
• searching…in response to receiving search information, to obtain a title and an answer corresponding to the search information (i.e., mental steps)
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “processor”
(2) A “memory storing instructions”
(3) A “storing” of “the at least one title and an answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title in a question bank in a structured manner”
(4) inputting…the selected at least one question into the trained title recognition model
(5) title recognition model
(4) An “outputting, through a graphical user interface, the title and answer corresponding to the search information”
(5) A “character recognition technology”
A “processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
This “processor” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “memory storing instructions” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
This “memory storing instructions” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “storing” of “the at least one title and an answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title in a question bank in a structured manner” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
This “storing” of “the at least one title and an answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title in a question bank in a structured manner” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “inputting…the selected at least one question into the trained title recognition model” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f)(2) recites in part:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
This “inputting…the selected at least one question into the trained title recognition model” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “title recognition model” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
[0081] Specifically, a training process of using a large number of training samples to train the title recognition model is as follows:
[0082] 1) collecting a large number of question-containing texts as training samples.
[0083] 2) performing title feature labeling for each word in the training samples to construct a data set. For example, some words in the questions belong to the common feature attributes, or some words in the questions belong to unique feature attributes.
[0084] 3) using a model structure such as a convolutional neural network to build the title recognition model, and then using the collected training samples to train the title recognition model. In the training process, an error of the title recognition model may be determined based on a difference between a detection result of feature attributes of words of the training sample by the title recognition model and labelling information of feature attributes of the training sample, and an error back propagation method may be used to perform iteration to adjust parameters of the title recognition model, so as to gradually reduce the error. When the error of the title recognition model converges to a certain range or the number of iteration times reaches a preset number threshold, the parameter adjustment may be stopped, and the trained title recognition model may be obtained.
This “title recognition model” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “outputting, through a graphical user interface, the title and answer corresponding to the search information” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f)(2) recites in part:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
This “outputting, through a graphical user interface, the title and answer corresponding to the search information” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “character recognition technology” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f)(2) recites in part:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
This “character recognition technology” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “processor”
(2) A “memory storing instructions”
(3) A “storing” of “the at least one title and an answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title in a question bank in a structured manner”
(4) inputting…the selected at least one question into the trained title recognition model
(5) title recognition model
(4) An “outputting, through a graphical user interface, the title and answer corresponding to the search information”
(5) A “character recognition technology”
A “processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “memory storing instructions” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “storing” of “the at least one title and an answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title in a question bank in a structured manner” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “inputting…the selected at least one question into the trained title recognition model” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f)(2) recites in part:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “title recognition model” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
[0081] Specifically, a training process of using a large number of training samples to train the title recognition model is as follows:
[0082] 1) collecting a large number of question-containing texts as training samples.
[0083] 2) performing title feature labeling for each word in the training samples to construct a data set. For example, some words in the questions belong to the common feature attributes, or some words in the questions belong to unique feature attributes.
[0084] 3) using a model structure such as a convolutional neural network to build the title recognition model, and then using the collected training samples to train the title recognition model. In the training process, an error of the title recognition model may be determined based on a difference between a detection result of feature attributes of words of the training sample by the title recognition model and labelling information of feature attributes of the training sample, and an error back propagation method may be used to perform iteration to adjust parameters of the title recognition model, so as to gradually reduce the error. When the error of the title recognition model converges to a certain range or the number of iteration times reaches a preset number threshold, the parameter adjustment may be stopped, and the trained title recognition model may be obtained.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
An “outputting, through a graphical user interface, the title and answer corresponding to the search information” is a broad term which is described at a high level.
Further, since the “outputting, through a graphical user interface” is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the outputting, through a graphical user interface to produce a result is not eligible. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Applicant's GUI is generic, well-understood, routine, and conventional. Applicant's Specification, paragraph [0110] recites:
[0110] The systems and technologies described herein may be implemented in a computing system (e.g., as a data server) that includes back-end components, or a computing system (e.g., an application server) that includes middleware components, or a computing system (for example, a user computer with a graphical user interface or a web browser, through which the user may interact with the embodiments of the systems and technologies described herein) that includes front-end components, or a computing system that includes any combination of such back-end components, middleware components, or front-end components. The components of the system may be interconnected by any form or medium of digital data communication (e.g., a communication network). Examples of the communication network include: local area network (LAN), wide area network (WAN), and Internet.
Simply using the GUI to produce a result is not eligible.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
A “character recognition technology” is a broad term which is described at a high level.
Further, since the “character recognition technology” is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the character recognition technology to produce a result is not eligible. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claimed “character recognition technology” is well-understood, routine and conventional. Applicant's Specification, paragraph [0096] recites:
[0096] In some optional implementations of the present embodiment, the question-and-answer material includes: a question-and-answer image, and the processing unit 402 includes: a removing module (not shown in the figure), a correction module (not shown in the figure), a processing module (not shown in the figure). The removing module may be configured to remove regional noise in the question-and- answer image to obtain a noise-free image. The correction module may be configured to correct, in response to image information in the noise-free image having an inclination angle, the image information in the noise-free image to obtain a corrected image. The processing module may be configured to perform layout cutting, character recognition, and character sorting on the corrected image sequentially, to obtain the question-and-answer corpus pair.
Simply using the processor to perform a mental task of character recognition to produce a result is not eligible.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 8 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites:
9. The apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the question bank comprises titles and answers corresponding to the titles respectively, and the operations further comprise:
processing the titles in the question bank to obtain respective retrieval titles;
acquiring the search information; and
searching for the title and the answer corresponding to the search information in the question bank, based on the retrieval titles, comprising performing a similarity comparison between a retrieval title and the search information according to threshold criteria, and thereby determining whether the title and the answer to the title corresponding to the retrieval title in the question bank are the title and the answer corresponding to the search information.
Applicant’s Claim 9 merely teaches mental steps of (1) obtaining respective retrieval titles, (2) acquiring search information, (3) searching for a title and an answer, (4) performing a similarity comparison, and (5) determining whether the title and the answer to the title corresponding to the retrieval title in the question bank are the title and the answer corresponding to the search information. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 9 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites:
10.The apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the operations comprise:
determining whether a question in the question-and-answer material was answered based on obtaining, via processing the to-be-identified materials, information from a different user which is associated with the said question, said information having semantic content indicating that the question is answered.
Applicant’s Claim 10 merely teaches the mental steps of determining whether a question in the question-and-answer material was answered.
It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 10 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites:
12.The apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the operations of at least one processor comprise:
removing regional noise in the question-and-answer image to obtain a noise-free image;
correcting in response to image information in the noise-free image having an inclination angle, the image information in the noise-free image to obtain a corrected image, comprising performing image processing on the image information which adjusts the inclination angle; and
performing layout cutting, character recognition, and character sorting on the corrected image sequentially, to obtain the question-and-answer corpus pair, wherein the layout cutting comprises separately cutting a part of the corrected image in which a formula is located,
the character recognition comprises performing feature extraction to recognize different lines, and mapping a formula in different lines to a formula library through fuzzy matching, and
the character sorting comprises sorting the formula for display separate to an original sequence of paragraphs which are cut in the layout cutting.
Applicant’s Claim 12 merely teaches a series of mental steps. Starting with the claimed “layout cutting,” Applicant's Specification recites:
[0067] 1) Layout cutting, where the corrected image (or an uncorrected noise-free image) is divided into paragraphs and cut into different lines; a part, in which a formula is located, in the corrected image (or uncorrected noise-free image) is separately cut.
Note that the claimed “layout cutting” is simply editing a document into paragraphs and lines. This “layout cutting” is purely a mental step. Further, the claimed “character recognition,” and “character sorting” are also mental steps.
Applicant's Specification, paragraph [0064] discusses “removing regional noise in the question-and-answer image” as follows:
[0064] In this optional implementation, removing regional noise in the question-and-answer image includes: removing noise in a fuzzy area, "space" in the question and the answer, and removing an unrecognizable pattern in the question-and-answer image, etc.
Note that one of the methods for “removing regional noise in the question-and-answer image” includes removing an “unrecognizable pattern” which includes the mental step of spelling correction. The list is also open ended because of the “etc.” at the end and, therefore, includes other mental processes.
Applicant also claims the mental step of: “correcting, in response to image information in the noise-free image having an inclination angle, the image information in the noise-free image to obtain a corrected image”. The human being is able to mentally rotate things in the mind and is able to read documents that are presented at an incline.
Further, the claim comprises “performing feature extraction” (i.e., mental steps), “mapping a formula in different lines to a formula library” (i.e., mental steps), and “sorting the formula” (i.e., mental steps)
It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 12 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites:
14.The apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the operations of the at least one processor further comprise:
performing structuring processing on the at least one title and the answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title, to obtain at least one title-answer group to be stored;
comparing each title-answer group to be stored in the at least one title-answer group to be stored with a title-answer group of title-answer groups in the
question bank; and
storing, into the question bank, a title-answer group to be stored that is different from any one of title-answer groups in the question bank.
Applicant’s Claim 14 merely teaches structuring data, comparing data, and storing data. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 14 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 15
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “15. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, storing computer instructions, the computer instructions, being used to cause the computer to perform operations comprising…” Therefore, it is a “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium” (or “product of manufacture”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 15 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 15 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• clustering…to-be-identified images that meet a text question-and-answer condition in the to-be-identified images to obtain a question-and-answer text (i.e., mental steps)
• clustering…to-be-identified texts that meet a text question-and-answer condition in the to-be-identified texts to obtain a question-and-answer text (i.e., mental steps)
• combining…the question-and-answer image and the question-and-answer text to obtain question-and-answer material (i.e., mental steps)
• performing…corpus-processing on the question-and-answer image and the question-and-answer text (i.e., mental steps)
• the question-and-answer corpus pair comprising at least one question and an answer to each question of the at least one question
• performing title determination on the question-and-answer corpus pair
• performing word segmentation and natural language processing on the question-and-answer corpus pair
• determining a similarity between semantics of words or characters in a question of the question-and-answer corpus pair and a preset title common feature
• determining, in response to when the similarity is higher than a similarity threshold, that the question in the question-and-answer corpus pair is a title
• extracting common features from manually labeled question-and-answer texts in which titles and non-titles are distinguished
• searching…in response to receiving search information, to obtain a title and an answer corresponding to the search information (i.e., mental steps)
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “storing” of “the at least one title and an answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title in a question bank in a structured manner”
(2) A “computer”
(4) An “outputting, through a graphical user interface, the title and answer corresponding to the search information”
(5) A “character recognition technology”
A “storing” of “the at least one title and an answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title in a question bank in a structured manner” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
This “storing” of “the at least one title and an answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title in a question bank in a structured manner” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “computer” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
This “computer” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “outputting, through a graphical user interface, the title and answer corresponding to the search information” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f)(2) recites in part:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
This “outputting, through a graphical user interface, the title and answer corresponding to the search information” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “character recognition technology” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f)(2) recites in part:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
This “character recognition technology” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “storing” of “the at least one title and an answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title in a question bank in a structured manner”
(2) A “computer”
(4) An “outputting, through a graphical user interface, the title and answer corresponding to the search information”
(5) A “character recognition technology”
A “storing” of “the at least one title and an answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title in a question bank in a structured manner” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
An “outputting, through a graphical user interface, the title and answer corresponding to the search information” is a broad term which is described at a high level.
Further, since the “outputting, through a graphical user interface” is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the outputting, through a graphical user interface to produce a result is not eligible. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Applicant's GUI is generic, well-understood, routine, and conventional. Applicant's Specification, paragraph [0110] recites:
[0110] The systems and technologies described herein may be implemented in a computing system (e.g., as a data server) that includes back-end components, or a computing system (e.g., an application server) that includes middleware components, or a computing system (for example, a user computer with a graphical user interface or a web browser, through which the user may interact with the embodiments of the systems and technologies described herein) that includes front-end components, or a computing system that includes any combination of such back-end components, middleware components, or front-end components. The components of the system may be interconnected by any form or medium of digital data communication (e.g., a communication network). Examples of the communication network include: local area network (LAN), wide area network (WAN), and Internet.
Simply using the GUI to produce a result is not eligible.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
A “character recognition technology” is a broad term which is described at a high level.
Further, since the “character recognition technology” is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the character recognition technology to produce a result is not eligible. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claimed “character recognition technology” is well-understood, routine and conventional. Applicant's Specification, paragraph [0096] recites:
[0096] In some optional implementations of the present embodiment, the question-and-answer material includes: a question-and-answer image, and the processing unit 402 includes: a removing module (not shown in the figure), a correction module (not shown in the figure), a processing module (not shown in the figure). The removing module may be configured to remove regional noise in the question-and- answer image to obtain a noise-free image. The correction module may be configured to correct, in response to image information in the noise-free image having an inclination angle, the image information in the noise-free image to obtain a corrected image. The processing module may be configured to perform layout cutting, character recognition, and character sorting on the corrected image sequentially, to obtain the question-and-answer corpus pair.
Simply using the processor to perform a mental task of character recognition to produce a result is not eligible.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 15 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites:
16. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 15, wherein the electronic question bank comprises titles and answers corresponding to the titles respectively, and the operations further comprise:
processing, by computer, the titles in the electronic question bank to obtain respective retrieval titles;
acquiring, by computer, the search information; and
searching, by computer, for the title and the answer corresponding to the search information in the electronic question bank, based on the retrieval titles, comprising performing a similarity comparison between a retrieval title and the search information according to threshold criteria, and thereby determining whether the title and the answer to the title corresponding to the retrieval title in the electronic question bank are the title and the answer corresponding to the search information.
Applicant’s Claim 16 merely teaches mental steps of (1) obtaining respective retrieval titles, (2) acquiring search information, (3) searching for a title and an answer, (4) performing a similarity comparison, and (5) determining whether the title and the answer to the title corresponding to the retrieval title in the question bank are the title and the answer corresponding to the search information. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 16 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites:
17. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 15, the operations further comprising:
determining whether a question in the question-and-answer material was answered based on obtaining, via processing the to-be-identified images and the to-be-identified texts, information from a different user which is associated with the said question, said information having semantic content indicating that the question is answered.
Applicant’s Claim 17 merely teaches the mental steps of determining whether a question in the question-and-answer material was answered.
It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 17 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites:
19. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise:
removing, by computer, regional noise in the question-and-answer image to obtain a noise-free image;
correcting, by computer, in response to image information in the noise-free image having an inclination angle, the image information in the noise-free image to obtain a corrected image, comprising performing image processing on the image information which adjusts the inclination angle; and
performing, by computer, layout cutting, character recognition, and character sorting on the corrected image sequentially, to obtain the question-and-answer corpus pair, wherein the layout cutting comprises separately cutting a part of the corrected image in which a formula is located,
the character recognition comprises performing feature extraction to recognize different lines, and mapping a formula in different lines to a formula library through fuzzy matching, and
the character sorting comprises sorting the formula for display separate to an original sequence of paragraphs which are cut in the layout cutting.
Applicant’s Claim 19 merely teaches a series of mental steps. Starting with the claimed “layout cutting,” Applicant's Specification recites:
[0067] 1) Layout cutting, where the corrected image (or an uncorrected noise-free image) is divided into paragraphs and cut into different lines; a part, in which a formula is located, in the corrected image (or uncorrected noise-free image) is separately cut.
Note that the claimed “layout cutting” is simply editing a document into paragraphs and lines. This “layout cutting” is purely a mental step. Further, the claimed “character recognition,” and “character sorting” are also mental steps.
Applicant's Specification, paragraph [0064] discusses “removing regional noise in the question-and-answer image” as follows:
[0064] In this optional implementation, removing regional noise in the question-and-answer image includes: removing noise in a fuzzy area, "space" in the question and the answer, and removing an unrecognizable pattern in the question-and-answer image, etc.
Note that one of the methods for “removing regional noise in the question-and-answer image” includes removing an “unrecognizable pattern” which includes the mental step of spelling correction. The list is also open ended because of the “etc.” at the end and, therefore, includes other mental processes.
Applicant also claims the mental step of: “correcting, in response to image information in the noise-free image having an inclination angle, the image information in the noise-free image to obtain a corrected image”. The human being is able to mentally rotate things in the mind and is able to read documents that are presented at an incline.
Further, the claim comprises “performing feature extraction” (i.e., mental steps), “mapping a formula in different lines to a formula library” (i.e., mental steps), and “sorting the formula” (i.e., mental steps)
It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 19 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites:
20. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 15, the operations further comprising:
selecting, by computer, the at least one question from the question-and-answer corpus pair;
inputting, by computer, the selected at least one question into a trained title recognition model to obtain at least one title output by the title recognition model, the title recognition model being used to perform title determination on the input at least one question; and
selecting, by computer, for each title in the at least one title, an answer to the title from the question-and-answer corpus pair.
Applicant’s Claim 20 merely teaches input data and the mental steps of selecting a question and selecting an answer. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 20 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 21
Claim 21 recites:
21. The method according to claim 1,
wherein the acquiring, by computer, to-be-identified images and to-be-identified texts from an electronic resource of a question-asking community in real-time further comprises
acquiring, by computer, from the to-be-identified images and to-be-identified texts, attribute information for the question and the answer corresponding to the question, wherein the attribute information is information for identifying at least one of a time, a person, an address; and
the storing into the electronic question bank, by computer, the at least one title and an answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title in a structured manner, comprises
storing in a storage cell in the question bank,
wherein a storage structure of the cell in the question bank has fields which comprise: a title field name for title content; an answer field name for answer content; a questioner field name for a questioner name; an answerer field name for an answerer name; a time field name for a question time and/or for an answer time; and/or an address field name for a questioning address and/or for an answering address.
Applicant’s Claim 21 merely teaches acquiring/receiving "to-be-identified images and to-be-identified texts" (i.e., receiving information), storing data, and defined set of data fields (i.e., mental steps). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 21 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Reasons Why the Claims Are Not Rejected Under the Art of Record
Claims 1, 8, and 15 fail to expressly teach:
"performing, by computer via at least a character recognition technology, corpus-processing on the question-and-answer image and the question-and-answer text"
and
"performing, by computer, title determination on the question-and-answer corpus pair to obtain at least one title and an answer corresponding to each title of the at least one title"
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 MAR 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1
In this response, Applicant has amended the independent claims to include the limitation of "outputting, through a graphical user interface, the title and answer corresponding to the search information". Those skilled in the art well understand that a graphical user interface is a human-computer interaction interface that uses visual elements such as windows, icons, menus, buttons and dialog boxes, allowing users to perform operations through pointing devices like a mouse or via touch control. The "graphical user interface" amounts to a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, and accordingly, at least the limitation of "outputting, through a graphical user interface, the title and answer corresponding to the search information" amounts to "an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim" which integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition, amended claim 1 of the present application includes at least the following operations, which relate to specific image processing and recognition via at least a character recognition technology and physically cannot be mentally processed and does not relate to mathematical steps, and thus amounts to significantly more that integrates the exception into a practical application:
acquiring, by computer, to-be-identified images... from an electronic resource of a question-asking community in real time; clustering, by computer, to-be- identified images. to obtain a question-and-answer image, performing, by computer via at least a character recognition technology, corpus- processing on the question-and-answer image to obtain a question-and-answer corpus pair.
Firstly, Examiner notes that M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (h) recites in part:
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include:
***
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
***
Examiners should be aware that the courts often use the terms “technological environment” and “field of use” interchangeably, and thus for purposes of the eligibility analysis examiners should consider these terms interchangeable. Examiners should also keep in mind that this consideration overlaps with other considerations, particularly insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.
Secondly, since the “graphical user interface” (GUI) is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the GUI to produce a result is not eligible. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Applicant's GUI is generic, well-understood, routine, and conventional. Applicant's Specification, paragraph [0110] recites:
[0110] The systems and technologies described herein may be implemented in a computing system (e.g., as a data server) that includes back-end components, or a computing system (e.g., an application server) that includes middleware components, or a computing system (for example, a user computer with a graphical user interface or a web browser, through which the user may interact with the embodiments of the systems and technologies described herein) that includes front-end components, or a computing system that includes any combination of such back-end components, middleware components, or front-end components. The components of the system may be interconnected by any form or medium of digital data communication (e.g., a communication network). Examples of the communication network include: local area network (LAN), wide area network (WAN), and Internet.
Therefore, simply using the GUI to produce a result is not eligible.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 2
Furthermore, the amended claims provide an improved retrieval system which presents a more precise feedback on the graphical user interface.
The specification at paragraph [0002] describes "A content richness for a question bank for college students determines a recall rate and an accuracy of the matching strategy."
By acquiring to-be-identified images and to-be-identified texts from an electronic resource of a question-asking community in real time, clustering certain to-be-identified images in the acquired to-be-identified images to obtain a question-and-answer image and clustering certain to-be-identified texts in the acquired to-be-identified texts to obtain a question-and- answer text, performing, via at least a character recognition technology, corpus-processing on the question-and-answer image and the question-and-answer text to obtain a question-and-answer corpus pair, performing title determination on the question-and-answer corpus pair to obtain at least one title and an answer and storing the obtained at least one title and an answer into the electronic question bank in a structured manner, the present invention is capable of automatically and effectively expanding the electronic question bank based on images and texts acquired in real time, greatly enriching the number of titles and answers in the question bank, so as to improving the recall rate and accuracy of title search in the electronic question bank. So that feedback returned by the electronic question bank/retrieval system and presented on the graphical user interface is more accurate.
The solved technical problem could be regarded as "how to improve accuracy of the feedback presented on the graphical user interface."
Accordingly, the claimed invention as amended sets forth an improved data retrieval system which can present a more precise feedback on the graphical user interface. Therefore, the functioning of a computer is improved by having the improved data retrieval system.
Accordingly, the various operations performed by computer reflect the improvement in the functioning of a computer, and thus amount to additional elements which integrate the exception into a practical application.
As such, the claimed invention is directed to eligible subject matter at least under Step 2A of the eligibility analysis.
Withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 is respectfully requested.
Examiner notes that Applicant's Specification, paragraph [0039] recites:
[0039] By the method for entering information provided by the present embodiment, it is possible to automatically acquire the title, and use the acquired title to automatically and effectively expand the question bank for college students, which may greatly facilitate to improve the recall rate and accuracy of title search for college students, and expand the number of titles and types in the question bank.
The claimed invention is being used to simply automate steps that would ordinarily be performed manually by college students (i.e., mental steps)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Conclusion
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wilbert L. Starks, Jr., who may be reached Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST. or via telephone at (571) 272-3691 or email: Wilbert.Starks@uspto.gov.
If you need to send an Official facsimile transmission, please send it to (571) 273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful the Examiner’s Supervisor (SPE), Kakali Chaki, may be reached at (571) 272-3719.
Hand-delivered responses should be delivered to the Receptionist @ (Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22313), located on the first floor of the south side of the Randolph Building.
Finally, information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Moreover, 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) toll-free @ 1-866-217-9197.
/WILBERT L STARKS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122
WLS
04 APR 2026