DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment submission filed on 9/4/2025. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-17 were amended, while claims 2 and 7 had been canceled in the previous Office Action. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-19 are pending in the application of which Claims 1, and 11 are independent and 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Amendment filed 9/4/2025 (herein “Amendment”) with respect to the claim objection on the various claims raised in the previous office action are acknowledged. The previous claim objections are withdrawn in view of amendment.
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Amendment with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Consequently, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding 112(f), claim interpretation, Examiner like state that the previous claim interpretation is withdrawn, however, the claim amendment has introduced a new set of claim interpretation and shown in this Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments in the Amendment with respect to the 35 USC §101 rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-19 raised in the previous office action have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Consequently, 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant set forth on page 9 of the Amendment:” Applicant has amended claims 1 and 11 incorporate elements that are not mental process or methods of organizing human activity. Thus, Applicant submits that the amended claims are drawn toward patent-eligible subject matter.”… “The standard is not can humans perform such steps via a pen and paper. Rather, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III(A) states "Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations." … For example, the concept of "all possible variations of the formed grammar patterns of the lexical elements within the frame are compared with the stored grammar patterns," is not something that is practically performed in the human mind.
Examiner disagrees, since short of considering “all Possible variations” everything else within the claimed invention is pointing toward a mental process. Human can check for the grammatical correctness of a sentence by comparing the suspected word with the options available. The point toward “all the possible variations” only point toward an automation aspect of a mental process. Per MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)- “iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).”
Applicant further states on page 10:” Paragraph 10 of the application discusses how the computation times for syntactic parsing methods are very large. Table 3 illustrates how the invention enables much faster processing times for a computer, reducing time from 52.2 yrs to 1.3 secs. Thus, the methods discussed in the disclosure and claimed improve the functioning of the computer and the technical field of syntactic parsing.”
Examiner disagrees, since a generic computer can perform word by word comparison or repeated arithmetic much faster, however, that does not constitute an improvement to the technology at hand, nor it provides an inventive concept. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.
Applicant continues on page 11:” The Examiner has incorrectly applied the law cited in Intellectual Ventures I L.L.C. v. Capital One Bank ("Intellectual Ventures") and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Insurance Co. ("Bancorp Servs") as being applicable to the claims.” … Furthermore, the specific elements that allow for the optimization have been claimed. In short, the claims are not directed to merely performing a process on a computer so that the process is performed more efficiently or faster, rather, the claims are directed to optimizing operations performed by a computer to perform computerized syntactic matching.
Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument persuasive, and still believes that the case law applies, and there was no “incorrectly applied the law”. If Applicant argument was hold to be true, for every application, there should exist a case law specific to that disclosure. That is not the case, and the case law is a guide not a case specific. Therefore, all the arguments with respect to aforementioned reference is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Amendment with respect to the 35 USC §103 rejection raised in the previous office action have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which was necessitated by applicant’s amendment. Therefore, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is introduced for independent claims further adding Robinson et al. (US20050192802), and new citations from the currently applied art combination of Kamatani and Birnbaum.
Please see prior art section below for more detail including updated citations and obviousness rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 11 and therefore claims 3-6, 8 -10, and 12-19 which depend therefrom; and claim 6, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 7 recites: “… of the word in the word list, the ...”, which appears to be indefinite since it is not clear which word it is referring to.
Claim 1, line 8 recites: “… the reading device into a plurality...”, which appears to be indefinite since it is not clear which reading device it is referring to.
Claim 1, line 13 recites: “… elements of the language, and...”, which appears to be indefinite since it is not clear which language it is referring to.
Claim 6, line 3 recites: “… categories of the lexical items.”, which appears to be indefinite since it is not clear which lexical items it is referring to.
Claim 11, line 6 recites: “… of the word in the word list, the ...”, which appears to be indefinite since it is not clear which word it is referring to.
Claim 11, line 8 recites: “… elements of the language, and...”, which appears to be indefinite since it is not clear which language it is referring to.
Claim 14, line 4 recites: “… corrected by the verification device, in order...”, which appears to be indefinite since it is not clear which verification device it is referring to.
Claim 18, line 2 recites: “… wherein the sequence decisions causal to the computation results of the...”, which appears to be indefinite since it is not clear which sequence decisions , or computation results it is referring to.
Applicant is advised to review all claims for any potential antecedent basis issues.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1:
reading module, dictionary module, syntax module, verification module, reading device.
Claim 6:
verification module
Claim 8:
verification module
Claim 9:
dictionary module
Claim 10:
correction module
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 3-6, 8-19 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. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The flowchart in MPEP 2106, subsection III, is used to determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility. For analysis purposes, one can follow the flowchart for subject matter eligibility.
PNG
media_image1.png
628
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1: The independent Claims is directed to statutory categories:
Step 1: Abstract Idea Groupings – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 is an apparatus claim and directed to the machine or manufacture category of patentable subject matter.
Claim 11 is a method claim and directed to the process category of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A is a two-prong test.
PNG
media_image2.png
404
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the Claim recite a Judicially Recognized Exception? Abstract Idea? Are these Claims nevertheless considered Abstract as a Mathematical Concept (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), Mental Process (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (1-fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), 2-commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), 3- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and fall under the judicial exception to patentable subject matter?)
The rejected Claims recite Mental Processes or Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional Elements that Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application? Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. “Integration into a practical application” requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Uses the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit to evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
The rejected Claims do not include additional limitations that point to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the rejected Claims are directed to the abstract idea that they recite.
Claim 1 is a generic automation of a mental process since a human agent can receiving, reading, decomposing character string, assigning grammar category, verifying, validating, analyze, evaluate, etc. Other than the mental process under the BRI, there is only the mention of a computer system, which is considered to be generic processor. Such devices are not invented nor improved by the applicant, and as such it is considered a generic processor/computer due to lack of specificity. With such a generic extra element, one cannot identify anything that can be relied upon as an improvement. Prong 2 of step 2A, in the 101 analysis, asks whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. The answer is no in this instance because there is no technological solution in the Claim that “integrates” the abstract idea. The Claim only suggests that the abstract idea be applied. It does not describe an application.
An apparatus for analyzing natural language comprising a computer system that executes machine-executable instructions including:
a reading module for reading and providing at least one character string including natural language, [This is merely amount to a data gathering activity, by way of collecting information/character string (i.e. sentence) which can be written down on a piece of paper.]
a dictionary module that includes a dictionary including word lists and basic forms of the word in the word list, the dictionary module configured to decompose the at least one character string provided by the reading device into a plurality of lexical elements, [This involves in breaking up or segmenting a sentence into various components (lexical elements) which made up the sentence. This can be carried out by a human with the help of pen and paper.]
a syntax module configured to assign to each lexical element of the plurality of lexical elements in its basic form, grammatical categories of the lexical element by accessing a database that includes grammatical categories for lexical elements of the language, and [This involves in assigning/tagging/labeling each word its relevant grammatical category (such as POS). This can be carried out by a human with the help of pen and paper.]
a verification module configured to automatically determine, for the lexical elements in a frame, with a predetermined number of lexical elements greater than one of the at least one character string, which arrangements of the lexical elements in the frame are correct and which are incorrect by comparing formed grammar patterns formed by the grammatical categories of the lexical elements in the frame with stored grammar patterns of natural language stored in advance in the database for the grammatical categories of the lexical elements, [This is amount to evaluating/checking the lexical element (words) by considering one or more of the words (frame) at a time and figuring out the correctness of its placement in the sentence using grammatical rules. This is considered a mental process.]
wherein the frame is superimposable successively over each lexical element of the at least one character string, [This is amount to evaluating one or more words by sliding over a sentence such as sliding window (frame) over the sentence. In other words, a word-by-word evaluation. This is considered a mental process.]
wherein for each position of the frame at each of the lexical elements, all possible variations of the formed grammar patterns of the lexical elements within the frame are compared with the stored grammar patterns and grammatical categories of the lexical element at the position of the frame in the formed grammar patterns that are determined to be incorrect are unassociated with the lexical element and not considered in other formed grammar patterns with the grammatical categories of other lexical elements of the plurality of lexical elements when the frame is repositioned to another lexical element of the plurality of lexical elements, [This is amount to considering all the options for a given word, and if a particular grammatical category is being checked, i.e., if the word being check for is a verb, no noun will be considered. This is considered a mental process].
wherein the verification module validates the at least one character string as syntactically correct and unambiguous in response to exactly one permitted grammatical category being determined for each lexical element in the at least one character string; and [This is amount to validating the grammatical correctness of a word in the sentence. This is considered a mental process.]
a correction and completion module configured to determine, in the at least one character string and grammatical categories associated with the lexical elements, a change to the at least one character string by systematical changing at least one lexical element of the at least one character string or by adding one or more lexical elements with suitable grammatical categories so that the verification module recognizes the at least one character string, after the change in the at least one character string, as correct based on the grammatical categories of the lexical elements in the at least one character string with the change matching the stored grammar patterns of natural language. [This is amount to applying (changing) correctness to the individua element as encounter to a problem and/or issue by comparing it against an example or grammatical rule, and subsequently, recheck the corrected version for compliance against the grammatical rules.]
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting various modules plus “a computer system” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements of using modules and “a computer system” to perform all of the above-mentioned steps. The use modules and “a computer system” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer/processor device performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component See MPEP2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception [R-10.2019].
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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Search for Inventive Concept: Additional Element Do not amount to Significantly More: The limitations of " decompose the at least one character string provided by the reading device into a plurality of lexical elements,”, “ assign to each lexical element of the plurality of lexical elements in its basic form, grammatical categories of the lexical element by accessing a database that includes grammatical categories for lexical elements of the language, ”, “automatically determine, for the lexical elements in a frame, with a predetermined number of lexical elements … the lexical elements in the frame are correct and which are incorrect by comparing formed grammar patterns formed by the grammatical categories of the lexical elements in the frame with stored grammar patterns of natural language stored in advance in the database for the grammatical categories of the lexical elements,”, “change to the at least one character string by systematical changing at least one lexical element …” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional machine components that and are being used for their well-understood, routine, and conventional and rather generic functions. Additionally, these limitations are expressed parenthetically and lack nexus to the claim language and as such are a separable and divisible mention to a machine. Merely reciting various modules plus “a computer system” without significantly more appears to be equivalent to a generic computer/processor to process a task that a human can process in their mind or with the aid of a paper/pen.
As mentioned, the only additional element to be considered, is the recitation of various modules plus “a computer system”. However, according to the as-filed specification (PGPUB version Par. 0003, 0053, 0054, 0059 and 0073) it disavows specificity of the device/module and/or computer system used Therefore, the cited additional element of module and/or computer system does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, it is not sufficient to cause the Claim, as a whole, to amount to significantly/substantially more than the underlying abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements of using module and “computer system” to perform all of the above-mentioned steps. The use of module and “computer system” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer/processor device performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component See MPEP2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception [R-10.2019]. Also, in case of device of the computer system, it is described in a broad manner such that it could include techniques that may be performed by a human, like a rule-based learning for example. The additional element of a “device of the computer system”, as cited the US PGPUB version of the as-filed specification in Par. 0003, 0053, 0054, 0059 and 0073 of the instant application appears to disclose a general-purpose computer component which are well-understood, routine and conventional elements. The use of an “computer and/or components of a computer” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer device performing a generic computer function of capturing input data, storing data and retrieval data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to independent Claim 11, does not rely on any additional component which are not sufficient to make the claim as a whole to amount to substantially more than the underlying abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not add limitations that would either integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or could help the Claim as a whole to amount to significantly more than the Abstract idea identified for the Independent Claim:
Claim 3 recites: “wherein a lexical element comprises or consists of a word or a punctuation mark.” Human, as mentioned earlier, can appreciate word and or punctuation mark a lexical element. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites: “wherein a beginning of the at least one character string and an end of the at least one character string each represent a lexical element.” Human can recognize a character string under various condition. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites: “wherein punctuation marks each represent a lexical element.” Human can appreciate/recognize a punctuation mark to be a lexical element. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites: “wherein the verification module is further adapted to identify the frame-by-frame determined correct grammatical categories of the lexical items.” Human can also determine correctness of each lexical item one word at a time. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites: “wherein syntactic errors in the at least one character string are detected with the verification module, a syntactic error being present if the verification module does not retain a single grammatical category for at least one lexical element or has not determined any permitted grammatical category.” Human can identify or detect a lexical error if more than one grammatical category is assigned, or no grammatical category assigned. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites: “wherein a correctness of each lexical element is verifiable by matching each syntactic element against the dictionary of the dictionary module.” Human can identify an error by comparing each element against a similar element in a list/dictionary. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites: “wherein the computer system further comprises a correction module configured for automatically correcting syntactic errors contained in the at least one character string.” Human can identify a syntactic error and correcting the same in the sentence at hand. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites: “wherein the changing the at least one lexical element of the at least one character string includes reformulations of the character string with respect to tense, numerus, genus, case, gender, and are automatically performed in such a way that the lexical elements are recognized as correct.” Human can use the appropriate lexical element to reorder or rearrange the sentence to reflect proper tense, etc. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites:” automatically identifying, lexical elements that are suitable for purposes of summarizing or identifying action or event scenarios in context via case, via temporal adverbs or other time-representing words, via conjunctions and related connected clauses, via adverbs of quantity and related dimensions, via adverbs of nouns, and/or special punctuation marks.” Human can identify any lexical item (word) and their sutability for a given application/intent such as summarization, etc. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites:” wherein, in response to character strings being detected as ambiguous, automatically generating queries as character strings - including the identified, remaining lexical elements - which are recognized as correct by the verification device, in order to communicate the character strings for presentation to a user or subsequent program.” Human can identify an ambiguity of a character string and attempt to correct it by confirming the statement by reciting it back to the user where part/portion of the text is included in the prompt/query. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites:” assembling information available as text from an automatic speech recognition device into the at least one character string, which is recognized as correct, for use as machine-executable instructions, in any man-machine interface.” Human can transcribe an audio and use that for further processing. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 recites:” combining information available as text from at least one device for automatic image processing into the at least one character string.” Similarly human can act as an OCR and recognize the text included in an image for further processing. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 recites:” wherein the change to the at least one character string further includes automatically inserting commas in the case of blank characters of the character string until the modified character string is recognized as correct.” Human can recognize an ambiguity in a character string and correct/improve it by inserting a comma, such as “John Doe” where he can insert a comma in the blank space to resolve the ambiguity such as “John, Doe”. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 recites:” wherein the sequence decisions causal to the computation results of the steps of the method by machine-executable instructions are deterministically documentable for traceability of a man-machine interface with respect to its input and the resulting actions in which these machine-executable instructions have been applied.” Human can look at a character string decide on the appropriateness of it based on a sequence causal. A given sentence which appears a grammatically correct would result in having appropriate sequence. For example: "The heavy rain, followed by the flooded streets, caused a series of traffic accidents." This sentence shows a clear sequence where the rain leads to the flooding, which then leads to the accidents. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 recites:” wherein on the basis of formal specifications for texts, such as comprehensibility of the sentence structure (subject, predicate, object sequence) or formal logical coherence, but not exclusively, evaluations of the formal structure with respect to length, type and sequence of morphological components of the character string are carried out automatically in order to be able to communicate these online or offline to a user or subsequent program via visual, tactile/sensory or auditory signs or signals.” A grammatically correct sentence would have a structure which has subject, predicate, object sequence. As such it will be comprehensible and formal. Such a sentence by virtue of having appropriate structure would also have appropriate sequence of morphological components which can be passed on to another user by writing it on a piece of paper and pass it on ward. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim directed toward abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birnbaum (US 20150127325 A1), and in further view of Robinson et al. (US20050192802A1)(herein "Robinson"), and Kamatani (US 20090228263 A1).
Birnbaum and Kamatani were applied in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claims 1, and 11 Birnbaum teaches [An apparatus for analyzing natural language comprising a computer system that executes machine-executable instructions including: – claim 1], [A method for analyzing natural language in the form of at least one character string, the method comprising: - claim 11] (Birnbaum, Par. 0005:” … The method can detect an error by analyzing a sequence of two or more words, identifying characteristics of the words and determining that the sequence of words based on the identified characteristics of the words match a predefined error rule.”, Par. 0021:” … a computer networked environment for improving the probability of grammatical error detection”, and Par. 0045:” … executed on any type and form of computing device, e.g. a computer, network device or appliance capable of communicating on any type and form of network and performing the operations described”, and Par. 0116:” …to analyzing the writing for grammatical errors”, and Par. 0141:” … the score analyzer 230 (FIG. 2B) of the grammar correction system can be configured to determine a competency score of a writer indicating a level of competence of the writer in a natural language based on one or more writings associated with the writer.” )
[a reading module for reading and providing at least one character string including natural language, - claim 1], [reading at least one character string including natural language into a computer system; - claim 11] (Birnbaum, Par.0023:” … users can submit written text and view identified grammatical errors and corrections …”, and Par. 0030:” … evaluating a writer's level of competence in a natural language.”, and Par. 0064:” … the piece of writing can be any document or resource that includes any collection of words capable of being analyzed for grammatical errors.”, and Par. 0082:” … The sequence of words can be any text string including one or more words. … the writing analyzer can identify a sentence or phrase as a sequence of words.”)
[a verification module configured to automatically determine, for the lexical elements in a frame, with a predetermined number of lexical elements greater than one of the at least one character string, which arrangements of the lexical elements in the frame are correct and which are incorrect by comparing formed grammar patterns formed by the grammatical categories of the lexical elements in the frame with stored grammar patterns of natural language stored in advance in the database for the grammatical categories of the lexical elements, - claim 1], [automatically analyzing, by the computer system, the lexical elements in a frame having a predetermined number of the lexical elements of the at least one character string, where the predetermined number is greater than one, the analyzing performed on the basis of natural language grammar rules for the grammatical categories of the lexical elements stored in advance in a grammar patterns database; determining which of the arrangements of the lexical items in the frame is correct and which is incorrect by comparing formed grammar patterns formed by the grammatical categories of the lexical elements in the frame with stored grammar patterns of natural language stored in the grammar patterns database for the grammatical categories of the lexical elements, - claim 11] (Birnbaum, Par. 0114:” … a writing to be analyzed for grammatical errors is received ...”, and Par. 0116:” … the grammar correction system can be configured to identify words in the writing and tag each of the words in the writing.”, and Par. 0117:” … can utilize error-based rules to identify grammatical errors in the writing (step 420). In some implementations, the error-based rules can include one or more tags which when combined or arranged in a certain way identify an error. … Grammar-based rules can include one or more tags which when combined or arranged in a certain way identify that the grammar of the writing does not violate the particular grammar-based rule.”, and Par. 0128:” The grammatical checker can identify, based on the comparison of one or more of the sequence of words [sequence of frames] with the predetermined list of words, a word of the sequence of words that is included in the predetermined list of words …”, and 0098:” … The tag module 224 can be configured to identify a word, perform a lookup in a database of the word and identify one or more tags associated with the word. …”) Note: When identifying whether it violate the particular grammar-based rule, equivalently identifies if the grammar used is correct or incorrect. When it looks up in a database, it implies checking for grammar rules/categories compliance. Furthermore, it is analyzing one word (frame size) at a time.
[wherein the frame is superimposable by the verification submission successively over each lexical element of the at least one character string, - claim 1], [wherein the frame is superimposable successively over each lexical element of the at least one character string and -claim 11] (Birnbaum, Par. 0006:” … The grammatical checker identifies, based on the comparison, a word of the sequence of words that is included in the predetermined list of words. … The sequence of tags is arranged in the order of the words in the sequence of words.”, and Par. 0091:” … The grammatical checker may arrange the tags in the sequence of tags in the order of the words in the sequence of words such that all tags associated with a first word in the sequence of words may correspond to a first position in the sequence of tags and all tags associated with a second word in the sequence of words may correspond to a second position in the sequence of tags and so on.”) Note: Analysis of word by word in the sequence based on the order of the words implies a word (syntactic element) long sliding window.
[wherein for each position of the frame at each of the lexical elements, all possible variations of the formed grammar patterns of the lexical elements within the frame are compared with the stored grammar patterns and grammatical categories of the lexical element at the position of the frame in the formed grammar patterns that are determined to be incorrect [[are unassociated with the lexical element and not considered in other formed grammar patterns with the grammatical categories of other lexical elements of the plurality of lexical elements when the frame is repositioned to another lexical element of the plurality of lexical elements]], - claim 1], [for each position of the frame at each of the lexical elements, all possible variations of the formed grammar patterns of the lexical elements within the frame are compared with the stored grammar patterns and grammatical categories of the lexical element at the position of the frame in the formed grammar patterns that are determined to be incorrect [[are unassociated with the lexical element and not considered in other formed grammar patterns with the grammatical categories of other lexical elements of the plurality of lexical elements when the frame is repositioned to another lexical element of the plurality of lexical elements]]; - claim 11] (Birnbaum, Par. 0091:” … The grammatical checker may arrange the tags in the sequence of tags in the order of the words in the sequence of words such that all tags associated with a first word in the sequence of words may correspond to a first position in the sequence of tags and all tags associated with a second word …”, and Par. 0117:” … can utilize error-based rules to identify grammatical errors in the writing (step 420). In some implementations, the error-based rules can include one or more tags which when combined or arranged in a certain way identify an error. … Grammar-based rules can include one or more tags which when combined or arranged in a certain way identify that the grammar of the writing does not violate the particular grammar-based rule.”) Note: each word (lexical element) is checked for grammatical errors (correctness/incorrectness) word by word (each position of the frame).
[wherein the verification module validates the at least one character string as syntactically correct and unambiguous in response to exactly one permitted grammatical category being determined for each lexical element in the at least one character string; and – claim 1], [validating the at least one character string as syntactically correct and unambiguous in response to exactly one permitted grammatical category being determined for each lexical element in the at least one character string; and – claim 11] (Birnbaum, Par. 0089:” In some implementations, the grammar correction system [verification module] can be configured to identify [validate] a function of the word included in the predetermined list of words based on the context of the sequence of words. In some implementations, the word may be ambiguous in that the word may be used as different parts of speech based on the context in which the word is used. In some implementations, the grammar correction system can apply one or more rules to determine the function of the word and assign a tag based on the function of the word. For instance, in the phrase "I see her," the word `her` is a direct object. However, in the phrase "I see her book," the word `her` is a possessive adjective. The grammar correction system can be able to determine the function of the w