DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
3. With respect to 101 Abstract idea, Applicant argues on page 3 of the Remarks that “The claims now more clearly recite to different elements as different “processors” and also recite to a “processor controlled display apparatus”. Applicant submits each of those claim features more clearly set forth statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C § 101…Applicant submits such features of a “screen control processor” are clearly not directed to mental processors but clearly as stated perform “first display control for displaying, on a processor-controlled display apparatus, a question group creation screen ...” and “second display control for displaying, on the display apparatus, a knowledge information creation screen ...”. Applicant submits providing such control for first and second displays on a processor controlled display apparatus are clearly not directed to mental processes.”
In response, Examiner respectfully notes the additional element(s) or combination of elements such as the processor in any ways (e.g., each processor for performing each claimed limitation or one processor for performing all of claimed limitation) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant argues on page 4 of the Remarks that “Applicant submits a “processor controlled display apparatus” clearly cannot be met by a human operating with pen and paper. Applicant further submits each of the now claimed “processor” clearly sets forth a non-human device and is not directed to mental processes.”
In response, Examiner respectfully notes that a processor clearly sets forth a non-human device however the mere recitation of a processor and/or the like is akin of adding the word “apply it” and/or “use it” with a computer in conjunction with the abstract idea.
Applicant argues on page 4 of the Remarks that “The claims are also clearly directed to a practical application as the claims are directed to a system that allows knowledge information such as FAQs to be created from the user's support histories, and to display each of a “question group creation screen” and a “knowledge information creation screen” to a user. Such features are clearly directed to practical applications.”
In response, displaying each of a “question group creation screen” and a “knowledge information creation screen” to a user is a mental process. The human could write down group information of each of the question groups and knowledge information of the one of the question groups to the user. Since the improvement is a part of the abstract mental process, it would not available to qualify as an improvement to technology in step 2A prong 2.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and thus for these reasons, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to 112(f) interpretation, in the RCE filed on 11/18/2025, only one limitation in claim 11 recites a generic placeholder. More specifically, claim 11 recites “an input control section configured to …” Thus, only this claim limitation is being interpreted under 112(f). “section” in this limitation of claim 11 is interpreted as a processor (See Non-Final OA mailed on 03/12/2025.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 12-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors. Claim 11 recites “A knowledge information creation assist system…” Claims 12-15 depend on Claim 11. Claims 12-15 recite “The knowledge information creation assist apparatus according to claim 11…” Claim 11 is system claim, whereas Claims 12-15 are apparatus claim. Claims 12-15 should be changed to “The knowledge information creation assist system according to claim 11…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 3-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites
“1. (Currently Amended) A knowledge information creation assist apparatus for providing a function of assisting creation of knowledge information related to questioning, comprising:
an input control processor configured to control upload of a plurality of user support histories including questions;
a question utterance extraction processor configured to perform processing of removing at least one unnecessary utterance sentence not related to questioning from the uploaded user support histories or processing of extracting at least one utterance sentence related to questioning from the user support histories and then output a result of the processing;
a grouping control processor configured to classify the result of the processing from the question utterance extraction section into a plurality of question groups according to a predetermined classification model; and
a screen control processor configured to perform first display control for displaying, on a processor controlled display apparatus, a question group creation screen including group information of each of the question groups and second display control for displaying, on the display apparatus, a knowledge information creation screen for producing knowledge information in response to input performed by a creator to one of the question groups selected on the question group creation screen;
wherein the question utterance extraction processor is configured to access an utterance classifying dictionary to determine whether or not one of time-series utterance sentences included in the user support histories corresponds to an utterance having no information representing questioning, and in response to determining that the utterance sentence corresponds to an utterance having no information representing questioning, remove the utterance sentence from the user support histories.”
The limitations in the independent claims as drafts covers a mental processes. More specifically, the underlying abstract idea revolved around what happen once a human removes an unrelated sentence to questions from a user support histories, and groups the user support histories. Claim recites “upload of a plurality of user support histories includes questions;” Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; 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. The use of a display amounts to extra-solutions activity to output result of a question group and a knowledge information which could be displayed by a human using a pen and paper. The display also functions according to its well-known function of presenting data.
Claim 3 recites
“3. (Currently Amended) A knowledge information creation assist apparatus for providing a function of assisting creation of knowledge information related to questioning, comprising: an input control processor configured to control upload of a plurality of user support histories including questions; a question utterance extraction processor configured to perform processing of removing at least one unnecessary utterance sentence not related to questioning from the uploaded user support histories or processing of extracting at least one utterance sentence related to questioning from the user support histories and then output a result of the processing; a grouping control processor configured to classify the result of the processing from the question utterance extraction processor into a plurality of question groups according to a predetermined classification model; and
a screen control processor configured to perform first display control for displaying, on a processor controlled display apparatus, a question group creation screen including group information of each of the question groups and second display control for displaying, on the display apparatus, a knowledge information creation screen for producing knowledge information in response to input performed by a creator to one of the question groups selected on the question group creation screen;
wherein the question utterance extraction processor is configured to access an utterance classifying dictionary to determine whether or not one of time-series utterance sentences included in the user support histories corresponds to an utterance sentence having information representing questioning, and in response to determining that the utterance sentence corresponds to an utterance sentence having information representing questioning, extract a predetermined number of utterances subsequent to the utterance sentence as a question sentence unit.”
The limitations in the independent claims as drafts covers a mental processes. More specifically, the underlying abstract idea revolved around what happen once a human extracts a predetermined number of utterances subsequent to the utterance sentence in response to determining that the utterance sentence having information representing questioning. Claim recites “upload of a plurality of user support histories includes questions;” Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; 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. The use of a display amounts to extra-solutions activity to output result of a question group and a knowledge information which could be displayed by a human using a pen and paper. The display also functions according to its well-known function of presenting data.
Claim 11 recites
“11. (Currently Amended) A knowledge information creation assist system for providing a function of assisting creation of knowledge information related to questioning, comprising:
an input control section configured to receive a plurality of user support histories including questions in response to upload operation on processor controlled a terminal of a creator creating knowledge information;
a question utterance extraction processor configured to perform processing of removing at least one unnecessary utterance sentence not related to questioning from the uploaded user support histories or processing of extracting at least one utterance sentence related to questioning from the user support histories and then output a result of the processing;
a grouping control processor configured to classify the result of the processing from the question utterance extraction section into a plurality of question groups according to a predetermined classification model;
a screen control processor configured to perform first display control for displaying, on the terminal, a question group creation screen including group information of each of the question groups and second display control for displaying, on the terminal, a knowledge information creation screen for producing knowledge information in response to input performed by the creator to one of the question groups selected on the question group creation screen; and
an output control processor configured to produce and output output data of the knowledge information created for each of the question groups on the knowledge information creation screen in response to download operation on the terminal;
wherein the question utterance extraction processor is configured to access an utterance classifying dictionary to determine whether or not one of time-series utterance sentences included in the user support histories corresponds to an utterance having no information representing questioning, and in response to determining that the utterance sentence corresponds to an utterance having no information representing questioning, remove the utterance sentence from the user support histories.” as recited in Claim 11.
The limitations in the independent claims as drafts covers a mental processes. More specifically, the underlying abstract idea revolved around what happen once a human removes an unrelated sentence to questions from a user support histories, and groups the user support histories. Claim recites “upload of a plurality of user support histories includes questions;” Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; 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. The use of a display amounts to extra-solutions activity to output result of a question group and a knowledge information which could be displayed by a human using a pen and paper. The display also functions according to its well-known function of presenting data. Produce and output the knowledge information is a mental process. “a predetermined classification model” is recited in high level of generality. The predetermined classification model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits how the predetermined classification model functions.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims recite the additional limitations of a processor. The additional element(s) or combination of elements such as the processor in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. There is further no improvement to the computing device other than grouping the questions from the user support histories. The mere recitation of a processor and/or the like is akin of adding the word “apply it” and/or “use it” with a computer in conjunction with the abstract idea. Paragraph [00124] of the specification disclose “[0098] The functions of the present invention can be implemented by a program. A computer program previously provided for implementing each function can be stored on an auxiliary storage apparatus, the program stored on the auxiliary storage apparatus can be read by a control section such as CPU to a main storage apparatus, and the program read to the main storage apparatus can be executed by the control section to allow a computer to perform the function of each component in the present invention. Each of the functions of the present invention can also be implemented by a different one of apparatuses, and those apparatuses can be connected directly or via a network to constitute a computer system.”
As filed in the specification, the computer is listed as a general-purpose computer and are mainly used as an application thereof. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do 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 element of using a computer is noted as a general computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims further do not remedy the issues noted above. More specifically,
Claim 4 recites considering a sentence having information representing questioning as an extraction start position and extracting a predetermined number of utterances. Claim 4 adds details regarding the steps to the abstract idea of mental process. There are no additional limitations presented. Claim 5 recites considering a sentence in the result of the processing having information representing questioning as an extraction start position and extracting a predetermined number of utterances. Claim 5 adds details regarding the steps to the abstract idea of mental process. There are no additional limitations presented. Claim 6 recites not outputting a predetermined number of utterance sentences from a top of the user support histories to the grouping control section. Claim 6 adds details regarding the steps to the abstract idea of mental process. There are no additional limitations presented. Claim 7 recites using dictionaries containing words, keywords and exemplary utterances to classify an utterance as relating or not relating to the questioning. Claim 7 adds details regarding the steps to the abstract idea of mental process. There are no additional limitations presented. Claim 8 recites using the utterance classifying dictionaries for filtering. Claim 8 adds details regarding the steps to the abstract idea of mental process. There are no additional limitations presented. Claim 9 recites creating a representative question sentence and a keyword of each of the question groups. Claim 9 adds details regarding the steps to the abstract idea of mental process. Claim 9 further recites displaying the group information. The use of a display amounts to extra-solutions activity to output result of a question group and a knowledge information which could be displayed by a human using a pen and paper. The display also functions according to its well-known function of presenting data. Claim 12 recites not output a predetermined number of utterance sentences from a top of the user support histories. This reads on the human could select or not select a predetermined number of utterance sentences to present to the user. There are no additional limitations presented. Claim 13 recites a first library and a second library. There are no additional limitations presented. Claim 14 recites a plurality of utterance classifying dictionaries, and forming a plurality of utterance filter modules. Claim 14 adds details regarding to the abstract idea of mental process. There are no additional limitations presented. Claim 15 describe an abstract idea of mental process of creating a representative question sentence and a keyword of each of the question groups. The use of a display amounts to extra-solutions activity to output the presentative sentence and the keyword which could be displayed by a human using a pen and paper.
For at least the supra provided reasons, claims 1, 3-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1, 3-9 and 11-15 are allowed in view of the prior art of record. The claims stand rejected under 101 Abstract idea, and for the application to pass to allowance this rejection need to be overcome. Any amendments to overcome the 101 rejection that results in any change in scope require further search and/or consideration in order to determine it allowability.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art(s) taken alone or in combination fail(s) to teach the following element(s) in combination with the other recited elements in the claim(s).
“a screen control processor configured to perform first display control for displaying, on a processor controlled display apparatus, a question group creation screen including group information of each of the question groups and second display control for displaying, on the display apparatus, a knowledge information creation screen for producing knowledge information in response to input performed by a creator to one of the question groups selected on the question group creation screen;
wherein the question utterance extraction processor is configured to access an utterance classifying dictionary to determine whether or not one of time-series utterance sentences included in the user support histories corresponds to an utterance having no information representing questioning, and in response to determining that the utterance sentence corresponds to an utterance having no information representing questioning, remove the utterance sentence from the user support histories.” as recited in Claim 1.
“a screen control processor configured to perform first display control for displaying, on a processor controlled display apparatus, a question group creation screen including group information of each of the question groups and second display control for displaying, on the display apparatus, a knowledge information creation screen for producing knowledge information in response to input performed by a creator to one of the question groups selected on the question group creation screen;
wherein the question utterance extraction processor is configured to access an utterance classifying dictionary to determine whether or not one of time-series utterance sentences included in the user support histories corresponds to an utterance sentence having information representing questioning, and in response to determining that the utterance sentence corresponds to an utterance sentence having information representing questioning, extract a predetermined number of utterances subsequent to the utterance sentence as a question sentence unit.” as recited in Claim 3.
“an output control processor configured to produce and output data of the knowledge information created for each of the question groups on the knowledge information creation screen in response to download operation on the terminal;
wherein the question utterance extraction processor is configured to access an utterance classifying dictionary to determine whether or not one of time-series utterance sentences included in the user support histories corresponds to an utterance having no information representing questioning, and in response to determining that the utterance sentence corresponds to an utterance having no information representing questioning, remove the utterance sentence from the user support histories.” as recited in Claim 11.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure. See PTO-892.
a. Kawakami et al. (US 2022/0035849 A1.) In this reference, Kawakami et al. disclose a method and a system for classifying FAQs and displaying the classified FAQs in a selectable manner, so that the answer candidates for the question data may be narrowed down.
b. Liu et al. (US 2013/0144890 A1.) In this reference, Liu et al. disclose a method and a system for training a classifier based on questions stored in the FAQ-based system, each question corresponding to at least one answer, and applying the classifier to a query to return an answer.
c. Hashimoto et al. (US 2021/0157988 A1.) In this reference, Hashimoto et al. disclose a method and a system for specifying optimum frequently asked questions (FAQ), and outputs a return question sentence for specifying a question sentence requested by a user to a terminal with respect to the user's input of a character string.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THUYKHANH LE whose telephone number is (571)272-6429. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am-5pm.
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, Andrew C. Flanders can be reached on 571-272-7516. 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.
/THUYKHANH LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655