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 10/14/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-24 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-13, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejection for claims 1, 3-7, 14, 16-20, and 23, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-13, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 "signal" per se rejection for claims 23-24, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections for claims 1, 3-9, 14, and 16-24 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejection, the Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea or a mental process. The Applicant asserts that the claims, as amended, integrate the abstract concepts into a practical application, thus complying with Step 2A, prong two. The Applicant also attests that the independent claims constitute an improvement to processing efficiency, thus complying with Step 2B.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears that the Applicant is restating what is in the claim language without specifically identifying what elements and how each limitation is significantly more. The claim, taken as a whole, is merely the processing of a source text with a sequence-to-sequence model. This, at its core, is the analysis of a text document. The Examiner has considered all of the limitations as noted by the Applicant as part of the abstract idea as mental activities. The Applicant has not provided any reasoning or evidence as to why the noted limitations are not mental activities. The Examiner also notes in the rejection noted below that the claims only recite a few additional limitations of “a sequence-to-sequence model”, “encoder and decoder framework”, “the decoder”, “the encoder”, “a processor”, and “a memory”. These elements, as stated below, are general purpose computing elements. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 “signal” per se rejection, the Applicant’s amendment to claims 23-24 is persuasive. Therefore, this rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 14, and 16-24, the Applicant has incorporated subject matter previously denoted as allowable but objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Therefore, this rejection is withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 14, 16-20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 14, and 23, recite “obtaining a source text”, “inputting the source text”, “converting the target sequence”, “obtaining and processing, by the encoder, the source text”, “obtaining and processing, by the output embedding layer for any to-be-outputted word in the target sequence, at least one outputted word”, “obtaining, by a first layer self-attention network in the N-layer self-attention network, the at least one word vector”, “processing, by a first layer first processing network in the N-layer first processing network, the third word vector”, “performing S3, by a second layer self-attention network”, and “processing, by the second processing network, the fifth word vector”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the abstract idea of “mental processes” because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). That is, other than reciting “a sequence-to-sequence model”, “encoder and decoder framework”, “the decoder”, “the encoder”, “a processor”, and “a memory”, nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by a person converting a source text into a target sequence and into a target table.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements “a sequence-to-sequence model”, “encoder and decoder framework”, “the decoder”, “the encoder”, “a processor”, and “a memory” are all recited at a high- level of generality. Accordingly, these 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. Thus, the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, prong two).
Claims 1, 14, and 23 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical applications, the additional elements of “a sequence-to-sequence model”, “encoder and decoder framework”, “the decoder”, “the encoder”, “a processor”, and “a memory” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (Step 2B).
Dependent claims 3-7 and 16-20 are directed to obtaining the source text, processing the source text, and converting the target sequence into a target table. These limitations are also related to the abstract idea of “mental processes.” That is, nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by a person converting a source text into a target sequence and into a target table using generic computer components. No additional elements are present. The plain meaning of “obtaining”, “processing”, “determining”, “performing”, “calculating”, “generating”, and “training” encompasses mental observations or evaluations, e.g., a person’s mental observation of reading a document and transcribing a table corresponding to the information given in the document. Thus, the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, prong two). Furthermore, the mentions of “an encoder and decoder”, “an output embedding layer”, “an N-layer self-attention network”, “an N-layer first processing network”, and “a second processing network” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (Step 2B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8-9, 21-22, and 24 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in the independent claims including steps of “the sequence-to-sequence model is an encoder and decoder framework the decoder is of an N-layer structure and comprises an output embedding layer, an N-layer self-attention network, an N-layer first processing network, and a second processing network, the self-attention network adopting a single-head self-attention mechanism or a multi-head self- attention mechanism: and the inputting the source text into the sequence-to-sequence model, to obtain the target sequence corresponding to the source text comprises: S1: obtaining and processing, by the encoder, the source text, to obtain a hidden state of the source text; S2: obtaining and processing, by the output embedding layer for any to-be-outputted word in the target sequence, at least one outputted word in the target sequence, to obtain at least one word vector corresponding to the at least one outputted word S3: obtaining, by a first layer self-attention network in the N-layer self-attention network, the at least one word vector for each head in the single-head self-attention mechanism or multi- head self-attention mechanism, determining a header relationship vector between a first word vector and each second word vector, and obtaining a third word vector based on the header relationship vector between the first word vector and each second word vector, and the at least one word vector, the first word vector being a last word vector in the at least one word vector, the second word vector being any word vector in the at least one word vector, and the third word vector corresponding to the first word vector S4: processing, by a first layer first processing network in the N-layer first processing network, the third word vector based on the hidden state, to obtain a fourth word vector; S5: performing S3, by a second layer self-attention network in the N-layer self-attention network taking the fourth word vector as a new first word vector and taking a word vector obtained by processing each second word vector by the first layer first processing network as each new second word vector, until an Nth layer first processing network in the N-layer first processing network outputs a fifth word vector corresponding to the first word vector; and S6: processing, by the second processing network, the fifth word vector, to obtain the to-be-outputted word.”
Xie et al. (CN 112765330) discloses obtaining a source text; inputting the source text into a sequence-to-sequence model, to obtain a target sequence corresponding to the source text; and converting the target sequence into a target table. Xie et al. also discloses obtaining a plurality of first training samples and an initial model, the first training sample comprising: a text and a table corresponding to the text; converting the table into a sequence, the text and the sequence constituting a second training sample, and training the initial model with a plurality of second training samples corresponding to the plurality of first training samples to obtain a sequence-to-sequence model.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM MICHAEL WEAVER whose telephone number is (571)272-7062. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571) 272-7602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM MICHAEL WEAVER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2658
/RICHEMOND DORVIL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2658