DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed December 24, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1 – 2 and 4 – 10 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 24, 2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1 – 2 and 4 – 10 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues “The Office characterized the claims as being capable of implementation using the human mind. (Office Action at page 4). Applicant respectfully submits that this characterization fails to properly consider the specific technical features recited in the claims and considered in light of the specification.”.
However, the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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.
On page 8 of Applicant’s response, Applicant further argues “Even if the concept of "taxonomy construction" were assumed to include an abstract aspect, the present claims do not merely implement that concept on a generic computer. Rather, the present claims integrate the concept into a practical application by specifying concrete data structures and numerical computation procedures that improve the accuracy of taxonomy generation.”.
However, the claims only recite the additional elements “an information processing apparatus”, “at least one processor”, “a non-transitory recording medium”, and “a computer”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
On page 8 of Applicant’s response, Applicant further argues “According to non-limiting description in the specification, the "sentence group" and the "auxiliary information" used as inputs are defined as including information relating to the purpose and constraints of the taxonomy to be constructed. These inputs are not arbitrary or general-purpose text, but are structured data intentionally designed for taxonomy generation (see paragraphs [0039]-[0044] of the originally filed application). In particular, the specification explicitly states that the auxiliary information may be represented as natural language sentences or groups of words (see paragraphs [0042]-[0044] and [0174] of the originally filed application). Based on these inputs, candidate phrases are generated from the sentence group (see paragraphs [0075]-[0077] of the originally filed application). Thereafter, degrees of similarity are calculated between (i) distributed representation vectors of the candidate phrases and (ii) distributed representation vectors of the auxiliary information, using quantitative similarity measures such as cosine similarity or Euclidean distance (see paragraphs [0079] and [0137] of the originally filed application). Only those candidate phrases whose similarity satisfies a predetermined threshold are selected as phrases to be included in the taxonomy, while candidate phrases whose similarity is below the threshold are explicitly excluded from the taxonomy (see paragraphs [0079]-[0082] of the originally filed application).”.
However, a person can determine a degree of similarity between candidate phrases from a document and auxiliary information and select candidate phrases with a similarity that satisfies a predetermined threshold. The claims do not recite comparing distributed representation vectors of candidate phrases and distributed representation vectors of auxiliary information, and do not recite using quantitative similarity measures such as cosine similarity or Euclidean distance. If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.B).
On pages 8-9 of Applicant’s response, Applicant further argues “Furthermore, during taxonomy construction, the scores representing relationships between pairs of phrases are calculated. After calculating such scores, those scores are numerically corrected according to Equation (1), based on a similarity between (i) the distributed representation of the auxiliary information and (ii) a vector representing a difference between the distributed representations of two phrases (see paragraphs [0090]-[0095] of the originally filed application). Based on these corrected scores, edges are assigned only to phrase pairs whose corrected scores satisfy a threshold, thereby constructing the taxonomy structure (see paragraphs [0097]-[0099]). A similar correction using auxiliary information F2 is also applied to relationship scores between new phrases and existing phrases in the third embodiment (see paragraphs [0149]-[0152]).
However, the claims do not recite calculating scores representing relationships between pairs of phrases, and do not recite assigning edges only to phrase pairs whose corrected scores satisfy a threshold. If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.B).
On page 9 of Applicant’s response, Applicant further argues “These processes do not merely describe, at a high level, a result such as "reading phrases, selecting suitable ones, and determining whether they are related." Rather, the claims and the specification define a specific algorithm that encodes the content of auxiliary information into distributed representations and determines both a set of phrases and the relationship score based on numerical similarity between the distributed representation vectors of the candidate phrase and the distributed representation vectors of the auxiliary information. In particular, similarity computation in high-dimensional distributed representation spaces, followed by threshold-based selection and numerical score correction, necessarily presupposes computer implementation when applied to sentence groups of practical scale. Such processing is fundamentally different in nature from the mental steps that a human mind is practically capable of performing, as alleged by the Office.”.
However, the claims do not recite similarity computation in high-dimensional distributed representation spaces, followed by threshold-based selection and numerical score correction. If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.B).
On page 9 of Applicant’s response, Applicant further argues “The Specification also explicitly identifies a concrete problem in the prior art, namely, that phrases and relationships that do not conform to the intended purpose of a taxonomy may be included in the generated taxonomy (see paragraph [0009] of the originally filed application). The current application addresses this problem by narrowing candidate phrases using auxiliary information and further correcting relationship scores, the phrases and relationships included in the taxonomy are more likely to be consistent with the content of the auxiliary information. As a result, a desired taxonomy can be constructed with higher accuracy (see paragraphs [0010], [0061], [0100], and [0157] of the originally filed application). Accordingly, the present claims are not directed to merely executing an abstract classification concept on a computer. Rather, the present claims recite a concrete processing flow that improves the performance of taxonomy generation through the use of distributed representations of auxiliary information and quantitative similarity computations. Therefore, under Alice Step 2A, Prong Two, the present claims should be evaluated as integrating any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
However, the claims only recite the additional elements “an information processing apparatus”, “at least one processor”, “a non-transitory recording medium”, and “a computer”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
On page 11 of Applicant’s response, Applicant further argues “Accordingly, the present claims recite a non-conventional arrangement in which auxiliary information is numerically utilized in two distinct stages, i.e., candidate phrase screening and relationship score correction, and thereby achieve a concrete technical effect of improving taxonomy generation accuracy. Therefore, under Alice Step 2B, the claims as a whole recite an inventive concept that significantly exceeds any alleged judicial exception.”.
However, the claims only recite the additional elements “an information processing apparatus”, “at least one processor”, “a non-transitory recording medium”, and “a computer”. These additional elements amount 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.
Therefore, the rejections of claims 1 – 2 and 4 – 10 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 24, 2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claims 1 – 2, 4 – 5 and 7 – 10 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 13-14 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues “One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, in Vogel, the topical library is accessed only in a step of "combining the taxonomy with a topical library" that is performed after the taxonomy has already been generated from the extracted phrases and their clusters. The Office asserted that Vogel's topical library corresponds to the auxiliary information of the present invention. While Vogel's topical library constitutes information that is external to the extracted phrases, Applicant respectfully submits that Vogel uses the topical library in a fundamentally different manner from the manner in which the recited claim language uses auxiliary information. As noted above, claim 1 recites "a generating process of generating candidate phrases by using phrases included in the sentence group, and extracting a plurality of candidate phrases, from the candidate phrases, whose degree of similarity to the auxiliary information satisfies a given condition, as a plurality of phrases to be included in the taxonomy; and a constructing process of constructing the taxonomy by estimating a relationship between the extracted plurality of phrases." The recited claim language specifies that the auxiliary information is used to determine which candidate phrases, generated from the sentence group, are extracted as phrases to be included in the taxonomy. In other words, the auxiliary information directly controls the selection of phrases that constitute the taxonomy itself. In contrast, Vogel does not explicitly or inherently disclose that the topical library is used for extracting phrases to be included in the taxonomy. Rather, Vogel first completes taxonomy generation using extracted phrases, clusters, and leader phrases derived solely from the document text. Only after this taxonomy generation step is completed does Vogel access the topical library in order to assign topics to the already-generated taxonomy. Although Vogel associates each leader phrase with a topic from the topical library, a topic in Vogel is not an extracted phrase from the text for which the taxonomy is constructed. Accordingly, Vogel does not explicitly or inherently disclose using the topical library to determine which phrases extracted from the text are to be included in the taxonomy. Instead, the topical library in Vogel merely supplies externally defined topics that are assigned to an already- constructed taxonomy. For at least the reasons set forth above, Vogel fails to explicitly or inherently disclose each and every element recited in claim 1. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1, as being anticipated by Vogel, are respectfully requested.”.
However, Vogel (US Patent No. 7,113,954) recites, in column 6, lines 55-62, "defining the multi-level taxonomy comprises: assigning topics from a pre-determined topical library to the first level; associating each of the leader phrases with at least one of the topics; and assigning the leader phrases to the second level in association with their respective topics.", disclosing using the topical library to determine which phrases extracted from the text are to be included in the taxonomy when a degree of similarity to the auxiliary information satisfies a given condition, where assigning leader phrases to the second level reads on determining phrases to be included in the taxonomy, and associating each of the leader phrases with at least one of the topics assigned from a topical library reads on determining phrases extracted from the text have a degree of similarity to the auxiliary information that satisfies a given condition.
On pages 14-15 of Applicant’s response, Applicant further argues “With respect to claim 4, claim 4 recites "in the constructing process, the at least one processor estimates, as the relationship between the plurality of extracted phrases, a relationship which conforms to the auxiliary information." As explained above, Vogel describes a technique for constructing a taxonomy by extracting phrases from a document corpus, analyzing relationships among the extracted phrases, clustering related phrases, and selecting representative leader phrases. Based on the clusters and leader phrases, Vogel constructs a taxonomy from the document corpus alone. After the taxonomy has been constructed, Vogel integrates the completed taxonomy into a manually prepared topical library. In this integration process, predefined topics in the topical library are placed at the top hierarchy, and leader phrases are linked under corresponding topics. Through this linkage, the taxonomy containing the leader phrases is positioned under an appropriate topic. Although the Office asserted that the topical library in Vogel corresponds to the "auxiliary information" recited in Claim 4, Applicant respectfully submits that Vogel does not use the topical library in the manner required by Claim 4. Claim 4 recites the relationship between the plurality of phrases itself be estimated so as to conform to the auxiliary information. The estimated relationship is used to construct the taxonomy, as recited in Claim 1, from which claim 4 depends. In contrast, Vogel does not explicitly or inherently disclose using the topical library to estimate relationships between phrases extracted from the document corpus to construct the taxonomy. Vogel estimates relationships among phrases before referring to the topical library, and such relationship estimation is completed independently of the topical library. The topical library is used only after the taxonomy has already been constructed, for the purpose of positioning the taxonomy under a predefined topic. While Vogel identifies a topic that is closest to a leader phrase, one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably construe this process as estimating a relationship between two or more phrases extracted from the document corpus. A topic in the topical library is not a phrase obtained from the document corpus, and therefore the topical library is not used to estimate relationships between phrases derived from the document corpus. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 4, as being anticipated by Vogel, are respectfully requested.”.
However, Vogel recites, in column 6, lines 55-62, "defining the multi-level taxonomy comprises: assigning topics from a pre-determined topical library to the first level; associating each of the leader phrases with at least one of the topics; and assigning the leader phrases to the second level in association with their respective topics.", disclosing estimating a relationship between the extracted plurality of phrases which conforms to the auxiliary information under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim 4 limitation “wherein in the constructing process, the at least one processor estimates, as the relationship between the extracted plurality of phrases, a relationship which conforms to the auxiliary information”, where assigning leader phrases to the second level of a taxonomy based on their association with the topics from a topical library assigned to the first level of the taxonomy reads on estimating a relationship between the extracted plurality of phrases which conforms to the auxiliary information.
Therefore, the rejections of claims 1 – 2, 4 – 5 and 7 – 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 24, 2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 6 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 16-17 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues ““The Office conceded that Vogel fails to teach or suggest the auxiliary information includes a natural language sentence. (Office Action at page 21). The Office asserted that Reuther includes a natural language sentence. (Office Action at page 21). Assuming arguendo that the combination of Reuther and Vogel is proper, the Office failed to apply Reuther in a manner sufficient to cure the above noted deficiencies of Vogel. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 6, as being unpatentable over Vogel in view of Reuther, are respectfully requested.”.
However, Reuther (US Patent No. 7,974,984) recites, in column 4, lines 47-56, "Query: may refer to a request that describes or identifies information or data being sought by the user or the taxonomy management system. The query may include various combinations of text, non-text, and/or categories. For example, queries may include keywords (e.g., terms, phrases, natural-language sentences), as well as non-text queries (e.g. multimedia such as pictures or audio clips, and/or numerical queries such as auction bids, purchase prices, or travel dates), and/or categories (e.g. music genres such as Rock, Pop, or Urban).", disclosing “wherein the auxiliary information includes a natural language sentence” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation, where a request that describes or identifies information or data being sought by a taxonomy management system reads on auxiliary information, and the request including natural-language sentences reads on auxiliary information including a natural language sentence.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description:
“S211” in paragraph 0043, line 1.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0043, line 1, “step S211” should read “step S221”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, and 4 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites an information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out: an obtaining process of obtaining a sentence group and auxiliary information which relates to a taxonomy to be constructed; a generating process of generating candidate phrases by using phrases included in the sentence group, and extracting a plurality of candidate phrases, from the candidate phrases, whose degree of similarity to the auxiliary information satisfies a given condition, as a plurality of phrases to be included in the taxonomy; and a constructing process of constructing the taxonomy by estimating a relationship between the extracted plurality of phrases.
The claim 1 limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an information processing apparatus” and “at least one processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the actions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “obtaining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person reading sentences of a document and reading auxiliary information about the document, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person writing phrases from the document, “extracting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person selecting phrases that has a degree of similarity to the auxiliary information that satisfies a given condition, and “constructing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining a taxonomy by estimating relationships between the phrases based on the auxiliary information. 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 the additional elements “an information processing apparatus” and “at least one processor”. The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Examples of generic computer components can be found in paragraph 0115 of the specification, “The processor C1 can be, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a graphic processing unit (GPU), a digital signal processor (DSP), a micro processing unit (MPU), a floating point number processing unit (FPU), a physics processing unit (PPU), a microcontroller, or a combination thereof. The memory C2 can be, for example, a flash memory, a hard disk drive (HDD), a solid state drive (SSD), or a combination thereof.”. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do 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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount 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.
Claims 2 and 4 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 2 and 4 – 8 depend from claim 1, and thus recites the limitations of claim 1.
For the reasons discussed above for claim 1, the claim 1 limitations recite abstract ideas. The additional limitations of claims 2 and 4 – 8 do not preclude the steps of claim 1 from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person using the method of claim 1 to determine a taxonomy could also perform the limitations of claims 2 and 4 – 8:
Claim 2: A person could write a phrase from the document that is similar to the auxiliary information.
Claim 4: A person could estimate a relationship between phrases that conforms to the auxiliary information.
Claim 5: A person could estimate a relationship between phrases that conforms to the auxiliary information by calculating information indicating the relationship between the phrases and correcting the information calculated using the auxiliary information.
Claim 6: A person could read auxiliary information about a document where the auxiliary information includes a natural language sentence.
Claim 7: A person could read auxiliary information about a document where the auxiliary information includes a group of words.
Claim 8: A person could determine a partial taxonomy for a document, write a new phrase from the document that differs from a phrase that is included in the partial taxonomy, and expand the partial taxonomy by estimating a relationship between the new phrase and a phrase that is included in the partial taxonomy.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For the reasons discussed above for claim 1, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do 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. For the reasons discussed above for claim 1, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites an information processing method comprising: obtaining a sentence group and auxiliary information which relates to a taxonomy to be constructed; generating candidate phrases by using phrases included in the sentence group, and extracting a plurality of candidate phrases whose degree of similarity to the auxiliary information satisfies a given condition, as a plurality of phrases to be included in the taxonomy; and constructing the taxonomy by estimating a relationship between the extracted plurality of phrases, obtaining the sentence group and the auxiliary information, generating the phrase, and constructing the taxonomy being carried out by at least one processor.
The claim 9 limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the actions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “obtaining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person reading sentences of a document and reading auxiliary information about the document, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person writing phrases from the document, “extracting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person selecting phrases that has a degree of similarity to the auxiliary information that satisfies a given condition, and “constructing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining a taxonomy by estimating relationships between the phrases based on the auxiliary information. 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 the additional element “at least one processor”. The additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Examples of generic computer components can be found in paragraph 0115 of the specification, “The processor C1 can be, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a graphic processing unit (GPU), a digital signal processor (DSP), a micro processing unit (MPU), a floating point number processing unit (FPU), a physics processing unit (PPU), a microcontroller, or a combination thereof. The memory C2 can be, for example, a flash memory, a hard disk drive (HDD), a solid state drive (SSD), or a combination thereof.”. Accordingly, the 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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a non-transitory recording medium in which a program is recorded, the program causing a computer to carry out: an obtaining process of obtaining a sentence group and auxiliary information which relates to a taxonomy to be constructed; a generating process of generating candidate phrases by using phrases included in the sentence group, and extracting a plurality of candidate phrases whose degree of similarity to the auxiliary information satisfies a given condition, as a plurality of phrases to be included in the taxonomy; and a constructing process of constructing the taxonomy by estimating a relationship between the extracted plurality of phrases.
The claim 10 limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a non-transitory recording medium” and “a computer”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the actions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “obtaining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person reading sentences of a document and reading auxiliary information about the document, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person writing phrases from the document, “extracting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person selecting phrases that has a degree of similarity to the auxiliary information that satisfies a given condition, and “constructing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining a taxonomy by estimating relationships between the phrases based on the auxiliary information. 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 the additional elements “a non-transitory recording medium” and “a computer”. The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Examples of generic computer components can be found in paragraph 0115 of the specification, “The processor C1 can be, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a graphic processing unit (GPU), a digital signal processor (DSP), a micro processing unit (MPU), a floating point number processing unit (FPU), a physics processing unit (PPU), a microcontroller, or a combination thereof. The memory C2 can be, for example, a flash memory, a hard disk drive (HDD), a solid state drive (SSD), or a combination thereof.”. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do 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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 5 and 7 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vogel (US Patent No. 7,113,954).
Regarding claim 1, Vogel discloses an information processing apparatus (Column 3, line 28, "FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a text processing system 10.") comprising at least one processor (Column 3, lines 29-32, "The text processing system 10 may include a parser 12, a clusterizer 14, a map generator 16, a database (DB) 18, a taxonomy generator 20 and a central processing unit (CPU) 22."), the at least one processor carrying out:
an obtaining process of obtaining a sentence group and auxiliary information which relates to a taxonomy to be constructed (Column 3, lines 35-40, "The text processing system may receive one or more pieces of text, such as stories, press releases or documents, and may generate a searchable taxonomy which may be searched by one or more client computers (Client #1, Client #2 and Client #N)."; Column 4, lines 17-25, "The taxonomy generator 20 may receive the extracted phrases from the parser, the clusters from the clusterizer (both of which are stored in the database 18) and a topical library/index which may also be stored in the database 18. The topical library may be a high level classification of subject matter within a particular area such as might be available in a typical text processing system for searching through the document in the database."; Receiving one or more pieces of text reads on obtaining a sentence group, and receiving a topical library that is a high level classification of subject matter within a particular area for searching through a document reads on obtaining auxiliary information which relates to a taxonomy to be constructed.);
a generating process of generating candidate phrases by using phrases included in the sentence group (Column 2, lines 11-15, “A system and method for generating a taxonomy in accordance with the invention is provided in which the phrases extracted from the plurality of documents or pieces of textual data stored in the database may be used to automatically generate a taxonomy for the database.”; Column 3, lines 40-44, "To generate the searchable taxonomy, each piece of text may be received by the parser 12 which processes each piece of incoming text and generates one or more key phrases for each piece of text which characterizes the piece of text."; Extracting phrases from a plurality of documents or pieces of textual data reads on generating candidate phrases by using phrases included in the sentence group.),
and extracting a plurality of candidate phrases, from the candidate phrases, whose degree of similarity to the auxiliary information satisfies a given condition, as a plurality of phrases to be included in the taxonomy (Column 2, lines 26-41, "In more detail, a broad topical library is manually generated and used to provide a structure for the taxonomy. The topical library may be of the same broad level of detail as a typical classification system. Next, the phrases extracted from the documents within the database may be clustered and mapped to form maps illustrating the relationships between the phrases within the documents. The phrases in the maps which are connected to the most other phrases in the map, known as leaders, may be used to form the first level of the taxonomy underneath the topical index. Next, phrases which are related to the leaders based on the clustering form the next level of the taxonomy and so on until the taxonomy has been automatically generated. In this manner, the taxonomy generated reflects the actual phrases contained in the database so that it is more accurate than typical classifications."; Column 6, lines 55-62, "defining the multi-level taxonomy comprises: assigning topics from a pre-determined topical library to the first level; associating each of the leader phrases with at least one of the topics; and assigning the leader phrases to the second level in association with their respective topics."; Assigning leader phrases to the second level of a taxonomy based on their association with the topics from a topical library assigned to the first level of the taxonomy, reads on extracting a plurality of candidate phrases whose degree of similarity to the auxiliary information satisfies a given condition as a plurality of phrases to be included in the taxonomy.);
and a constructing process of constructing the taxonomy by estimating a relationship between the extracted plurality of phrases (Column 3, lines 45-56, "Once the key phrases are extracted from each piece of text, the clusterizer 14 may generate one or more clusters of the key phrases based on the relationships between the phrases. The clusters generated may also be stored in the database 18. The map generator 16 may use the generated clusters in the database in order to generate a graphical map showing the relationships of the key phrases within the various pieces of text to each other so that a user of the system may easily search through the database of pieces of text by viewing the key phrases of the pieces of text. The clusters may also be used to generate the taxonomy in accordance with the invention as described below with reference to FIGS. 2-9."; Generating one or more clusters of key phrases based on the relationships between the phrases and generating a taxonomy using the clusters reads on constructing a taxonomy by estimating a relationship between a plurality of phrases.).
Regarding claim 2, Vogel discloses the information processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Vogel further discloses:
wherein in the generating process, the at least one processor generates, by using the phrases included in the sentence group, the candidate phrases which are similar to the auxiliary information (Column 6, lines 55-62, "defining the multi-level taxonomy comprises: assigning topics from a pre-determined topical library to the first level; associating each of the leader phrases with at least one of the topics; and assigning the leader phrases to the second level in association with their respective topics."; Assigning leader phrases in association with their respective topics from a topical library reads on a candidate phrase being similar to the auxiliary information.).
Regarding claim 4, Vogel discloses the information processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Vogel further discloses:
wherein in the constructing process, the at least one processor estimates, as the relationship between the extracted plurality of phrases, a relationship which conforms to the auxiliary information (Column 6, lines 55-62, "defining the multi-level taxonomy comprises: assigning topics from a pre-determined topical library to the first level; associating each of the leader phrases with at least one of the topics; and assigning the leader phrases to the second level in association with their respective topics."; Assigning leader phrases to the second level of a taxonomy based on their association with the topics from a topical library assigned to the first level of the taxonomy reads on estimating a relationship between the extracted plurality of phrases which conforms to the auxiliary information.).
Regarding claim 5, Vogel discloses the information processing apparatus as claimed in claim 4.
Vogel further discloses:
wherein in the constructing process, the at least one processor estimates the relationship which conforms to the auxiliary information, by (i) calculating information indicating the relationship between the extracted plurality of phrases and (ii) correcting, with use of the auxiliary information, the information calculated (Column 3, lines 40-56, "To generate the searchable taxonomy, each piece of text may be received by the parser 12 which processes each piece of incoming text and generates one or more key phrases for each piece of text which characterizes the piece of text. Once the key phrases are extracted from each piece of text, the clusterizer 14 may generate one or more clusters of the key phrases based on the relationships between the phrases. The clusters generated may also be stored in the database 18. The map generator 16 may use the generated clusters in the database in order to generate a graphical map showing the relationships of the key phrases within the various pieces of text to each other so that a user of the system may easily search through the database of pieces of text by viewing the key phrases of the pieces of text. The clusters may also be used to generate the taxonomy in accordance with the invention as described below with reference to FIGS. 2-9."; Column 4, line 65 - Colum 5, line 1, "If there are no more clusters to process, the taxonomy generated is combined with a topical library in step 52 to generate a final taxonomy in accordance with the invention."; Generating one or more clusters of the key phrases based on the relationships between the phrases reads on calculating information indicating the relationship between the extracted plurality of phrases, and combining the taxonomy generated with a topical library to generate a final taxonomy reads on correcting the information calculated with use of the auxiliary information.).
Regarding claim 7, Vogel discloses the information processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Vogel further discloses:
wherein the auxiliary information includes a group of words (Column 4, lines 17-25, "The taxonomy generator 20 may receive the extracted phrases from the parser, the clusters from the clusterizer (both of which are stored in the database 18) and a topical library/index which may also be stored in the database 18. The topical library may be a high level classification of subject matter within a particular area such as might be available in a typical text processing system for searching through the document in the database."; Column 5, lines 18-20, "To generate the taxonomy, a topical library 70 as shown in FIG. 5 may be used to define the broad subject matter classifications of the topics."; Figure 5; The topical library reads on auxiliary information that includes a group of words.).
Regarding claim 8, Vogel discloses the information processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Vogel further discloses:
wherein: in the obtaining process, the at least one processor further obtains a partial taxonomy which constitutes a part of the taxonomy to be constructed (Column 4, lines 41-63, "FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating a method 40 for generating a taxonomy in accordance with the invention. The method begins at step 42 in which the clusters received by the taxonomy system are analyzed to identify the leader clusters. The leader clusters are phrases in a map, as described below, which have associations (as shown by the lines in the map) with a large number of other phrases. The leader clusters tend to be broader phrases than the less connected other clusters so that the leader clusters form the best broad subject matter classifiers for the documents in the database. The leader clusters may then be used to form the first level of the taxonomy in step 44. In particular, the leader phrases are arranged in a hierarchical outline format as shown in FIG. 6. Next, the phrases associated with the leader phrases (those phrases with links to the leader phrases) are identified in step 46 and the next level of the taxonomy is generated from these clusters in step 48. In particular, the phrases related to each leader phrase are arranged underneath the leader phrase in a hierarchical relationship to form more specific sub-headings. Next, the taxonomy generator determines if there are any more phrases which are going to be added into the taxonomy based on the complexity and depth of the map."; The leader clusters being used to form the first level of a taxonomy reads on a partial taxonomy.);
in the generating process, the at least one processor generates a new phrase which differs from a phrase that is included in the partial taxonomy, by using the phrases included in the sentence group (Column 4, lines 41-63, "FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating a method 40 for generating a taxonomy in accordance with the invention. The method begins at step 42 in which the clusters received by the taxonomy system are analyzed to identify the leader clusters. The leader clusters are phrases in a map, as described below, which have associations (as shown by the lines in the map) with a large number of other phrases. The leader clusters tend to be broader phrases than the less connected other clusters so that the leader clusters form the best broad subject matter classifiers for the documents in the database. The leader clusters may then be used to form the first level of the taxonomy in step 44. In particular, the leader phrases are arranged in a hierarchical outline format as shown in FIG. 6. Next, the phrases associated with the leader phrases (those phrases with links to the leader phrases) are identified in step 46 and the next level of the taxonomy is generated from these clusters in step 48. In particular, the phrases related to each leader phrase are arranged underneath the leader phrase in a hierarchical relationship to form more specific sub-headings. Next, the taxonomy generator determines if there are any more phrases which are going to be added into the taxonomy based on the complexity and depth of the map."; Column 5, lines 43-56, "FIG. 7 illustrating a portion of a final taxonomy 90 generated when the generated taxonomy shown in FIG. 6 is combined with the topical library shown in FIG. 5. As shown, the final taxonomy generated in accordance with the invention contains more detail than the typical topical library. In addition, the headings (leader phrases) and the sub-headings of the taxonomy are generated from the pieces of text in the database so that the headings and sub-headings more accurately reflect the pieces of text in the database. Thus, it is easier to locate documents within the database using the automatically generated taxonomy in accordance with the invention. Now, several examples of the user interfaces for searching through the taxonomy in accordance with the invention will be described."; The phrases associated with the leader phrases read on a phrase which differs from a phrase that is included in the partial taxonomy.);
and in the constructing process, the at least one processor expands the partial taxonomy by estimating a relationship between the new phrase and the phrase that is included in the partial taxonomy (Column 4, lines 41-63, "FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating a method 40 for generating a taxonomy in accordance with the invention. The method begins at step 42 in which the clusters received by the taxonomy system are analyzed to identify the leader clusters. The leader clusters are phrases in a map, as described below, which have associations (as shown by the lines in the map) with a large number of other phrases. The leader clusters tend to be broader phrases than the less connected other clusters so that the leader clusters form the best broad subject matter classifiers for the documents in the database. The leader clusters may then be used to form the first level of the taxonomy in step 44. In particular, the leader phrases are arranged in a hierarchical outline format as shown in FIG. 6. Next, the phrases associated with the leader phrases (those phrases with links to the leader phrases) are identified in step 46 and the next level of the taxonomy is generated from these clusters in step 48. In particular, the phrases related to each leader phrase are arranged underneath the leader phrase in a hierarchical relationship to form more specific sub-headings. Next, the taxonomy generator determines if there are any more phrases which are going to be added into the taxonomy based on the complexity and depth of the map."; Using the phrases with links to the leader phrases to generate the next level of the taxonomy reads on expanding the partial taxonomy by estimating a relationship between the new phrase and the phrase that is included in the partial taxonomy.).
Regarding claim 9, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable.
Regarding claim 10, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. In addition, Vogel discloses a non-transitory recording medium in which a program is recorded (Column 7, lines 36-38, “An apparatus comprising a computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein a processor performs operations upon reading the instructions”), the program causing a computer to carry out the steps of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel in view of Reuther (US Patent No. 7,974,984).
Regarding claim 6, Vogel discloses the information processing apparatus as claimed in claim 1, but does not specifically disclose: wherein the auxiliary information includes a natural language sentence.
Reuther teaches:
wherein the auxiliary information includes a natural language sentence (Column 4, lines 47-56, "Query: may refer to a request that describes or identifies information or data being sought by the user or the taxonomy management system. The query may include various combinations of text, non-text, and/or categories. For example, queries may include keywords (e.g., terms, phrases, natural-language sentences), as well as non-text queries (e.g. multimedia such as pictures or audio clips, and/or numerical queries such as auction bids, purchase prices, or travel dates), and/or categories (e.g. music genres such as Rock, Pop, or Urban)."; Column 6, lines 20-32, "The exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure may describe methods and apparatuses for managing taxonomies used by computer software and hardware for classification and categorization engines and for information search and retrieval platforms for network accessible text, data, and digital content collections. The exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure may facilitate generation of taxonomies, small or large, at differing levels of category granularity, including development of associated evidence structures necessary as category profiles for categorization processes. The exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure may also provide maintenance and error processing based on analysis of both pre-classified content and access usage patterns."; A request that describes or identifies information or data being sought by the taxonomy management system, where the request includes natural-language sentences, reads on auxiliary information which relates to a taxonomy that includes a natural language sentence.).
Reuther is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of taxology generation. 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 Vogel to incorporate the teachings of Reuther to use a request that describes or identifies information or data being sought by the taxonomy management system, where the request includes natural-language sentences. Doing so would allow for using pre-existing taxonomies and categorized content to automatically create, maintain, and manage new taxonomies with minimum effort and greater control by information architects and content publishers (Reuther; Column 2, lines 42-47).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Boggs whose telephone number is (571)272-2968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at (571)272-5551. 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.
/JAMES BOGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 2657
/DANIEL C WASHBURN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2657