DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This communication is responsive to the applicant’s amendment dated 10/9/2025. The applicant amended claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16. Additionally, the applicant cancelled claims 4, 11, and 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 (see Remarks, pg. 10, line 9-24), filed 10/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that by amending the independent claims to incorporate, “transmitting the target attribute information and the target rating information to a device for display” overcomes 35 U.S.C. 101 because it falls within one of the four statutory categories. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitation is something that can be done with a pen and paper but the claim recites it with using a generic computer component. Additionally, transmitting information is well known and routine and does not constitute an inventive concept. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
The applicant is encouraged to incorporate how the machine learning subnetwork architecture provides a specific technological environment to computing hardware or operation. Alternatively, the applicant is encouraged to incorporate how the claimed invention reduces computational latency or memory usage through the sub-network architecture.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pg. 10, line 25 – pg. 15, line 11), filed 10/9/2025, with respect to claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The applicant amended the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 to include the limitation, “transmitting the target attribute information and the target rating information to a device for display”. The examiner believes the applicant has incorporated new matter. The specification only mentions in paragraph [0058] that there is an output unit that could include a display. There is no mention of transmitting target attribute information and the target rating information for display. The applicant states that support for the amendments can be found in [0042] of the specification, however, the examiner was unable to find support for the limitation there. Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 7-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are also rejected since they are dependent on independent claim 1, 8, and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “determining, by a first sub-network of a model deployed on a computing device, a first feature representation based on a first token contained in a text evaluating an entity, the first feature representation indicating semantic information of the first token in the text”; “determining, by a second sub-network of the model, first attribute information associated with the first token based on the first feature representation, the first attribute information indicating a first attribute associated with the entity involved in the text among a set of attributes, the set of attributes being acquired from a knowledge graph related to the entity”; “determining, by a third sub-network of the model, first rating information associated with the first token based on the first feature representation, the first rating information indicating a rating related to the first attribute, the rating being one of a set of predefined rating values, the set of predefined rating values comprising at least one of a value indicating a positive evaluation, a value indicating a negative evaluation, or a value indicating a neutral evaluation”; “determining, by the first sub-network, first status information associated with the first token based on an initial status of the machine learning model, the first status information indicating a status of the first sub-network”; and “determining, by a fourth sub-network of the machine learning model, domain information associated with the text based on the first status information, the domain information indicating a domain involved by the text”, “wherein the text further comprises a second token, and the method further comprises: determining, by the second sub-network, a second attribute information associated with the second token”, “determining, by the third sub-network, a second rating information associated with the second token, the second rating information indicating a rating related to the second attribute”, “determining target attribute information associated with the text based on the first attribute information and the second attribute information, the target attribute information indicating a set of attributes involved in the text”, “determining target rating information associated with the text based on the first rating information and the second rating information, the target rating information indicating a respective rating of each of the set of attributes”, and “transmitting the target attribute information and the target rating information to a device for display”.
The limitation of determining semantic information from a first token, as drafted, is a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor”, “at least one memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and comprising computer-readable instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing computer-readable instructions”, and “a computing device”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “at least one processor”, “at least one memory …”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium…”, and “a computing device” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompassing associating words with semantic information, which a human can do by understanding the meaning of a word. Similarly, the limitation of determining attribute information of the first token, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor”, “at least one memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and comprising computer-readable instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing computer-readable instructions”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “at least one processor”, “at least one memory …”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium…” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompassing associating words with characteristics, which a human can do by providing description of words. Next, the limitation of determining a rating of a word, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompassing ranking words, which a human can do by associating words with a score. Next, the limitation of determining status information associated with a token as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompassing describing words, which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of determining domain information as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompassing categorizing words, which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of determining second attribute information, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim limitation encompassing describing words, which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of determining second rating information, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim limitation encompassing describing words with ratings, which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of determining target attribute information, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim limitation encompassing describing words, which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of determining target rating information, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim limitation encompassing describing words with ratings, which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Lastly, the limitation of transmitting information for display, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “transmitting” in the context of this claim limitation encompassing displaying information, which a human can do with a pen and paper.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements, using a processor, memory, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to associate words with characteristics. These elements in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor, memory, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to perform the determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 7-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are also rejected for the same reason provided in the independent claims above. The dependent claim, including the further recited limitation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the additional elements, taken individually and in combination do not contribute to an inventive concept. In other words, the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEESHAN SHAIKH whose telephone number is (703)756-1730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571) 272-7602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZEESHAN MAHMOOD SHAIKH/Examiner, Art Unit 2658
/RICHEMOND DORVIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2658