DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/7/2026 has been entered.
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 response dated 1/7/2026. The applicant has amended independent claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 (see Remarks, pg. 6, line 1 – pg. 7, line 10) filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has amended the converting limitations in claim 1 to include that these steps are being “implemented by the processor reading and executing a program stored in the memory”. The examiner views these limitations as steps a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper but using generic computer components. Converting audio to text can be done by a human or transcriber and OCR is a means of writing or extracting text. Next, the applicant argues that claimed invention “improves the technical field of information retrieval by enabling seamless search across different media formats”. The applicant has not provided any support for this statement in either the specification or the claims. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection in maintained.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 (See Remarks, pg. 7, line 11 – pg. 9, line 8) filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant believes the prior art fails to teach, “wherein the acquired words used in the retrieval processing are words from which words not desired by the searcher have been excluded”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner believes this limitation is taught in Sakai in paragraph [0068] “if the user wants to edit the search results, a reediting request can be sent by entering a search query corresponding to a user's desired editing query through the input unit 10 (steps 1005 and 1006). In this case, the user may enter any instruction, other than the search query, such as to specify a display item or to specify a classification item from those displayed on the display screen output in step 1004, to instruct the display to show a category lower than the currently specified category”. This is illustrated in FIG. 10. Here the examiner interprets editing search results to entail a keyword exclusion process. Therefore, the limitation is met by Sakai and the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites “store a plurality of pieces of information that are text-searchable, the plurality of pieces of information including a first text and a second text”, “store, in the memory, a keyword dictionary in which words associated with categories are registered, and in which a range of representative words, synonyms, and words having similar meanings are defined in association with the categories”, “convert from audio to the first text using a speech recognition engine implemented by the processor reading and executing a program stored in the memory”, “convert from sentences written on a paper medium to the second text using Optical Character Recognition implemented by the processor reading and executing a program stored in the memory”, “store the first text and the second text in the database”, “accept a query sentence in a natural language format”, “extract an inputted search keyword from the query sentence”, “execute retrieval processing from the database using the inputted search keyword, along with a keyword relevant to the inputted search keyword”, “words associated with categories are registered”, “acquire, from the keyword dictionary, words associated with one of the categories selected by a searcher, re-sort information retrieved as a result of the retrieval processing, based on the acquired words, and display the information to the searcher”, and “wherein the acquired words used in the retrieval processing are words from which words not desired by the searcher have been excluded”.
The limitation of storing text-searchable information, as drafted, is a process, 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 “a database” and “a computer comprising a processor and a memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “database” and “a computer comprising a processor and a memory” language, “store” in the context of this claim encompasses storing data, which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of storing words associated with categories, 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 the elements listed above, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper. For example, “store” in the context of this claim can be done by simply storing words of similar meaning which can be done in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next the limitation of converting from audio to text, 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 the elements listed above, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper. For example, “convert” in the context of this claim can be done by transcribing audio which can be done with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of converting sentences written on paper to a second text 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 the elements listed above, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed with a pen and paper. For example, “convert” in the context of this claim can be done by rewriting text which can be done with a pen and paper. Next the limitation of storing a first and second text 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 a database, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper. For example, “store” in the context of this claim encompasses storing text, which can be done in the mind or with a pen and paper. Similarly, the limitation of accepting a query, 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 the elements listed above, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “accept” in the context of this claim encompasses receiving a question which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next the limitation of extracting keywords from a sentence 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 the elements listed above, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “extract” in the context of this claim encompasses extracting keywords from a sentence, which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of execute retrieval processing, 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 the elements listed above, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “execute” in the context of this claim encompasses retrieving information, which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of acquiring words associated with one of the categories 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 the elements listed above, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “acquire” in the context of this claim encompasses acquiring text, which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Lastly, the limitation of keyword exclusion 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 the elements listed above, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “excluded”, in the context of this claim encompasses censoring text, which a human can do in the mind or 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 computer comprising a processor and a memory” to perform the recited claims. These elements in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that is amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any 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 computer comprising a processor and a memory” to perform the recited limitations 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 2-8 are also rejected for the same reasons provided in independent claim 1 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. US 20050138018 A1 (hereinafter Sakai) in view of Bayer et al. US 20130041892 A1 (hereinafter Bayer).
Regarding independent claim 1, Sakai teaches an information search system, comprising:
a database configured to store a plurality of pieces of information that are text-searchable ([0044] “the search unit 30 searches servers on the network using this keyword… In the above example, since the word "glasses" which is the object of the query is derived as a keyword, a search is performed using the keyword "glasses"”, the examiner interprets servers on the network as the database and the keywords as pieces of information);
a computer comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the processor is configured to (FIG. 1, 101, 103):
store, in the memory, a keyword dictionary in which words associated with categories are registered, and in which a range of representative words, synonyms, and words having similar meanings are defined in association with the categories ([0060] discusses a classification unit that searches ontology which refers to class immediately lower than the for classification determined from the description of the ontology. Examiners interprets an ontology to contain words associated with the category in the form of representative words, synonyms, and words having similar meaning in association with the category);
accept a query sentence in a natural language format (FIG. 3, S301, [0043] “a query in natural language is entered through the input unit 10 (step 301)”);
extract an inputted search keyword from the query sentence ([0044] “At least one keyword is derived from the query based on this analysis”);
execute retrieval processing from the database using the inputted search keyword, along with a keyword relevant to the inputted search keyword (FIG. 3, S303, [0044] “At least one keyword is derived from the query based on this analysis. Next, the search unit 30 searches servers on the network using this keyword and forwards the search results to the search result processing unit 40 (step 303)”; [0045] “the dynamic sorting unit 41 of the search result processing unit 40 acquires the analysis results of the query from the natural language processing unit 20 to look for a modifier defining a restrictive condition of the keyword and extract a sorting factor used to sort the search results (step 304)”, examiner interprets modifier as relevant keyword); and
acquire, from the keyword dictionary, words associated with one of the categories selected by a searcher (FIG. 10, S1006, S1007, [0068] “the user may enter any instruction, other than the search query… such as to specify a classification item”),
re-sort information retrieved as a result of the retrieval processing, based on the acquired words (FIG. 3, S305, [0068] “the search result processing unit 40 performs processing such as sorting and classification based on the editing query (search query) obtained through the analysis”), and
display the information to the searcher (FIG. 3, S306, [0068] “The search results reprocessed according to the editing query are outputted and displayed”).
wherein the acquired words used in the retrieval processing are words from which words not desired by the searcher have been excluded (FIG. 10, [0068] “if the user wants to edit the search results, a reediting request can be sent by entering a search query corresponding to a user's desired editing query through the input unit 10 (steps 1005 and 1006). In this case, the user may enter any instruction, other than the search query, such as to specify a display item or to specify a classification item from those displayed on the display screen output in step 1004, to instruct the display to show a category lower than the currently specified category”, examiner interprets editing to entail keyword exclusion)
Sakai fails to teach the plurality of pieces of information including a first text and a second text; convert from audio to the first text using a speech recognition engine implemented by the processor reading and executing a program stored in the memory; convert from sentences written on a paper medium to the second text using Optical Character Recognition implemented by the processor reading and executing a program stored in the memory; store the first text and the second text in the database;
However, Bayer teaches the plurality of pieces of information including a first text and a second text ([0029] The text transformer 14 generates reflection files that are stored in the reflection repository 22. The reflector files may correspond to audio text files or image text documents, examiner interprets audio text files as first text and image text documents as the second text);
convert from audio to the first text using a speech recognition engine implemented by the processor reading and executing a program stored in the memory (FIG. 1, 21, [0027] “The audio recognition module 21, 21' converts the audio file to an audio text file using voice recognition”; FIG. 30);
convert from sentences written on a paper medium to the second text using Optical Character Recognition implemented by the processor reading and executing a program stored in the memory (FIG. 1, 18, [0026] “The optical character recognition module may perform OCR on images in the content repository 12”, examiner interprets images to include sentences written on paper medium; FIG. 30);
store the first text and the second text in the database ([0029] “The image text documents or audio text files may be stored in the reflection repository 22 with a unique file extension in a form that is compatible for crawling and indexing by various search engines”, examiner interprets repository as the database);
Sakai in view of Bayer is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are the same field of information retrieval. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques presenting information desired by a user from search results in an easy-to-reference format of Sakai with the technique of conversions into a text format and storing it in a database taught by Bayer in order to improve searching for information within an audio file. (see Bayer [0002]).
Regarding claim 2, Sakai in view of Bayer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends.
Additionally, Sakai teaches wherein the processor is further configured to re-sort the retrieved information according to the frequency with which each of the acquired words appears, or according to the degree of correlation with each of the acquired words ([0049] “The sorting process is to define how to sort the class in which each word defined as the sorting factor in the ontology belongs”, examiner interprets this type of sorting based of the degree of correlation).
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Bayer, as shown above in claim 1, in further view of Matsuo et al. US 20180137129 A1 (hereinafter Matsuo).
Regarding claim 3, Sakai in view of Bayer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends.
Sakai in view of Bayer fails to teach wherein, in the keyword dictionary, words that represent failure causes and that are described in the plurality of pieces of information are registered in association with causes, which are one of the categories
However, Matsuo teaches wherein, in the keyword dictionary, words that represent failure causes and that are described in the plurality of pieces of information are registered in association with causes, which are one of the categories ([0049] FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating document data stored in the document database 21 according to the first embodiment. The document data as a failure report includes respective items of a phenomenon, and a search keyword A(n) extracted from the phenomenon, a cause B(n), a countermeasure C(n), a part D(n), and a aggregation S(n) with respect to a management. number for identifying the document data).
Sakai in view of Bayer in view of Matsuo considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are the same field of information retrieval. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information retrieval techniques of Sakai in view of Bayer with the technique of register failure causes as one category taught by Matsuo in order to improve a retrieving device, a retrieving method, and a retrieving program for retrieving documents using keywords. (see Matsuo [0002]).
Regarding claim 4, Sakai in view of Bayer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends.
Sakai in view of Bayer fails to teach wherein, in the keyword dictionary, words that represent failure conditions and that are described in the plurality of pieces of information are registered in association with conditions, which are one of the categories.
However, Matsuo teaches wherein, in the keyword dictionary, words that represent failure conditions and that are described in the plurality of pieces of information are registered in association with conditions, which are one of the categories (FIG. 11, [0095] “The state acquisition unit 17 converts the received sensor information to a state keyword indicating an apparatus state on the basis of a predetermined conversion condition stored in the conversion database 23”, examiner interprets state as condition. ; [0096] “Here, the conversion condition stored in the conversion database 23 is a condition for comparing a sensor value or an operation result (for example, an integral value) of the sensor value with a threshold to convert the same to a state keyword and is set in advance from an empirical rule based on past cases”).
Sakai in view of Bayer in view of Matsuo considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are the same field of information retrieval. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information retrieval techniques of Sakai in view of Bayer with the technique of producing a state keyword from a sensor taught by Matsuo in order to improve a retrieving device, a retrieving method, and a retrieving program for retrieving documents using keywords. (see Matsuo [0002]).
Regarding claim 5, Sakai in view of Bayer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 5 depends.
Sakai in view of Bayer fails to teach wherein, in the keyword dictionary, words that represent parts and that are described in the plurality of pieces of information are registered in association with parts, which are one of the categories.
However, Matsuo teaches wherein, in the keyword dictionary, words that represent parts and that are described in the plurality of pieces of information are registered in association with parts, which are one of the categories (FIG. 2, D(n), [0050] “In the part item (the first item) D(n), information on the number of pieces is added to each part, and for example, a number is described in parenthesis like “X0015(1)”. In this case, whether parts can be classified into the same group is determined on the basis of the degree of matching of parts including the number of pieces”)
Sakai in view of Bayer in view of Matsuo considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are the same field of information retrieval. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information retrieval techniques of Sakai in view of Bayer with the technique of including words that represents parts in storage taught by Matsuo in order to improve a retrieving device, a retrieving method, and a retrieving program for retrieving documents using keywords. (see Matsuo [0002]).
Regarding claim 6, Sakai in view of Bayer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 6 depends.
Sakai in view of Bayer fails to teach wherein, in the keyword dictionary, words that represent apparatuses and that are described in the plurality of pieces of information are registered in association with apparatuses, which are one of the categories.
However, Matsuo teaches wherein, in the keyword dictionary, words that represent apparatuses and that are described in the plurality of pieces of information are registered in association with apparatuses, which are one of the categories (FIG. 9A, [0083] “the receiving unit 13 receives the identification information (apparatus ID) of one set of retrieval target machine tools. By doing so, the receiving unit 13 specifies a document database 21 in which the document data (failure reports) of the control apparatus and the mechanical apparatuses that form the machine tools are stored.”)
Sakai in view of Bayer in view of Matsuo considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are the same field of information retrieval. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information retrieval techniques of Sakai in view of Bayer with the technique of registering an apparatus described in pieces taught by Matsuo in order to improve a retrieving device, a retrieving method, and a retrieving program for retrieving documents using keywords. (see Matsuo [0002]).
Regarding claim 7, Sakai in view of Bayer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 7 depends.
Sakai in view of Bayer fails to teach wherein, in the keyword dictionary, words that represent equipment and that are described in the plurality of pieces of information are registered in association with equipment, which is one of the categories.
However, Matsuo teaches wherein, in the keyword dictionary, words that represent equipment and that are described in the plurality of pieces of information are registered in association with equipment, which is one of the categories ([0049] “The document data as a failure report includes respective items of a phenomenon”, examiner interprets the phenomenon to potentially include equipment as shown in number 23 of FIG. 2 “XY”).
Sakai in view of Bayer in view of Matsuo considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are the same field of information retrieval. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information retrieval techniques of Sakai in view of Bayer with the technique of registering words associated with equipment taught by Matsuo in order to improve a retrieving device, a retrieving method, and a retrieving program for retrieving documents using keywords. (see Matsuo [0002]).
Regarding claim 8, Sakai in view of Bayer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 8 depends.
Sakai in view of Bayer fails to teach wherein, in the keyword dictionary, words that represent functional locations and that are described in the plurality of pieces of information are registered in association with functional locations, which are one of the categories.
However, Matsuo teach wherein, in the keyword dictionary, words that represent functional locations and that are described in the plurality of pieces of information are registered in association with functional locations, which are one of the categories ([0049] “The document data as a failure report includes respective items of a phenomenon”, examiner interprets the phenomenon to potentially include function location)
Sakai in view of Bayer in view of Matsuo considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are the same field of information retrieval. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information retrieval techniques of Sakai in view of Bayer with the technique of registering words representing functional locations taught by Matsuo in order to improve a retrieving device, a retrieving method, and a retrieving program for retrieving documents using keywords. (see Matsuo [0002]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goenka et al. (US 20200089809 A1) teaches the present teaching relates to methods, systems, and programming for information retrieval. A search result associated with a search query is obtained and provided to a user. Upon receiving a filtering request from the user, the search result is filtered based on the filtering request to generate an updated search result. The updated search result is provided to the user in response to the filtering request.
He et al. (US 20130060755 A1) teaches applying screening information to search results is disclosed, including: receiving a search request for products, wherein the search request comprises one or more search conditions and a set of user information; retrieving screening information associated with the set of user information, wherein the screening information indicates one or both of seller information and product information to exclude from search results; determining a plurality of search results based at least in part on the one or more search conditions and determining a search result from the plurality of search results to be excluded based at least in part on the screening information; and returning one or more search results from the plurality of search results other than the search result determined to be excluded.
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