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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, the Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is improper because the claims are directed toward a practical solution to the problem of improving database searches. Moreover, amended claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter, because Paragraph [0054] of the specification descries a use case where the system applies a model reinforcement by learning from user responses (REMARKS, on page 8, 4th paragraph – page 12).
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is improper because the newly amended claim 1 is still directed to abstract idea.
Applicant’s invention is not technological improvement of the existing, but helping to achieve better human functionality in the field of language processing using a generic computer. Even though the disclosed invention is described in the background as improving computer technology, the claim provides no meaningful limitations such that this improvement is realized.
Moreover, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a model reinforcement by learning from user responses) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims and the claim does not include any details about a model or how it operates. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir.1993).
Therefore, the claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to independent claims 14 and 19, the claims 14 and 19 are similar to claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims 2-13, 15-18, and 20 are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer. Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality. As such, claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Thus, the rejection is maintained at this time. Please see the rejection below for the whole analysis.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim 1 recites “partitioning, by a plurality of sentence transformers, each resource in a list of resources into a plurality of resource portions; pre-calculating, by the plurality of sentence transformers, a plurality of resource vectors;, wherein the pre-calculating of the plurality of resource vectors comprises: vectorizing all text of whole resources in the list of resources into a first set of resource vectors of the plurality of resource vectors; and vectorizing text of at least some resource portions of the plurality of resource portions that have been partitioned into a second set of resource vectors of the plurality of resource vectors; receiving, by a server, a textual query from a user at search time; partitioning, by the plurality of sentence transformers, the textual query into a plurality of query portions; iteratively embedding, by the plurality of sentence transformers, a plurality of query vectors based on the plurality of query portions; generating, by the server, similarity scores between the plurality of query vectors and the plurality of resource vectors; tracking, by the server, user behavior associated with the user, wherein the tracking of the user behavior occurs at search time; adjusting, by the server, at least some of the similarity scores based on feedback comprising the user behavior at search time, wherein the adjusting of the similarity scores occurs at search time; selecting, by the server, one or more vectorized pairs of query vector and resource vectors based on the similarity scores; and determining, by the server, one or more probable answers to the textual query based on the one or more vectorized pairs that were selected”.
The limitation of “partitioning…”, “pre-calculating…”, “vectorizing…”, “receiving…”, “partitioning…”, “embedding…”, “generating…”, “tracking…”, “adjusting…”, “selecting…”, and “determining” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a human organizing of activities. More specifically, when one person asks another a question, the answer is provided by looking up the answers in previously prepared reference materials.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites additional element of “computer-implemented”. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as performing a generic computer function and being used as an applying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, there 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 element of using a computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 14 and 19, the claim is similar to claim 1 and claims 10 and 19 recite additional element of “computer-implemented”. These claims further do not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application and further fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claims 2-13, 15-18, and 20, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEONG-AH A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5933. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3PM.
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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
Seong-ah A. Shin
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/SEONG-AH A SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659