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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 January 2026 has been entered.
3. Accordingly, claims 1-11 and 13-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 11 are currently amended; claims 4-5, 8-10, 13, 15 and 17 are previously presented; claims 2-3, 6-7, 14, 16 and 18-20 are original; and claim 12 is cancelled.
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.
4. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The independent claim 1 recites the limitations of “generate a globally unique identifier (GUID) that uniquely identifies the input; and assign the input and the GUID to a taxonomy tree, wherein the input and the GUID are assigned to a node within a hierarchy of the taxonomy tree; map the taxonomy tree to an ontology; apply the ontology to a document to verify use of terminology in the document; and modify terminology of the document based upon the verification”. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The user can manually generate a GUID that uniquely identifies the input and assigns the input and GUID to a node within a hierarchy of the taxonomy tree with a pen and paper. Thus, this limitation is a mental process. As such, the claim is directed to a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements: receive an input that identifies a term and a definition of the term; store the input and the GUID in a data store. The receiving and storing steps are recited as a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Claim1 further recites the additional element “A system, comprising: a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least:”. However, the inclusion of generic computer components being used to implement the abstract idea do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is no more than insignificant extra solution activity (receiving and storing input data) that provides data for the exception, with mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. See MPEP 2016.05(b), MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception with well understood, routine, and conventional insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving or transmitting data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory – see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), which does not provide significantly more to the abstract idea. The mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
As such, the independent claim 11 is also directed to the abstract idea for the same reason as the claim 1 above. Thus, the claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim further recites the limitations, “wherein the machine readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to export the taxonomy tree as an Excel or XML file”, are insignificant extra solution activity which are well- understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. Thus, the claim includes no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the claims further recite the limitations, “wherein the machine readable instructions cause the computing device to store the taxonomy tree as an Excel or XML file and further cause the computing device to bi-directionally convert the taxonomy tree from the Excel to the XML file”, are insignificant extra solution activity which are well- understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. Thus, the claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claims 4 and 20, the claims further recite the limitations, “wherein the hierarchy comprises one or more sub-nodes, the one or more sub-nodes sharing one or more attributes with the node”, which further recites mental processes and are directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim further recites the limitation, “mapping the taxonomy tree to an ontology”, which further recites mental processes and are directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. Furthermore, claim includes no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, the claims further recite the limitations, “wherein the ontology comprises a World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) format”, which indicates mere data gathering activity that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. Furthermore, claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the claims further recite the limitations, “wherein the ontology comprises a Web Ontology Language (OWL)”, which indicates mere data gathering activity that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. Furthermore, claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, the claims further recite the limitations, “wherein the input further identifies at least one of a source of the term, a date of when the definition was created, an abbreviation of the term, one or more related terms, a validation indicator, or a reference code”, which indicates mere data gathering activity that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. Furthermore, claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the claims further recite the limitations, “wherein the input is imported and exported, either in an XML format or an Excel format”, are insignificant extra solution activity which are well- understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. Thus, the claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim further recites the limitations, “wherein the input is configured to be locked from editing once stored in the data store”, are insignificant extra solution activity which are well- understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. Thus, the claim includes no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 15, the claim further recites the limitations, “storing the input in a data dictionary, wherein the stored input is identifiable by the corresponding GUID”, are insignificant extra solution activity which provides data for the exception, with mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, the claim includes no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 16, the claim further recites the limitations, “wherein the stored data, taxonomy and ontology are locked after validation”, are insignificant extra solution activity which are well- understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. Thus, the claim includes no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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.
6. Claims 1, 4-5, 11, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BELLER et al. (US 2021/0264113 A1) hereinafter BELLER, in view of Vogel et al. (US 2016/0188698 A1) hereinafter Vogel.
As to claim 1, BELLER discloses a system, comprising: a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor (Fig. 7, Para. 75), cause the computing device to at least:
receive an input that identifies a term and a definition of the term (Fig. 4, 8, Para. 36, a pair extractor 218 evaluates each entry in each glossary within glossary collection 216 to extract a term and gloss pair, also described as a <term, gloss> pair, i.e., a term and a definition of the term. In one example, pair extractor 218 extracts a term and gloss by parsing a regular expression based on punctuation, such as a colon or dash, or formatting, such as bold or italicized text, to identify a term and a gloss.”. Para. 26, “a domain extension controller 130 minimizes the time, financial expense, and error proneness of generating updated taxonomy 132 by automatically extending the entries in initial taxonomy 124, to generate updated taxonomy 132, based on the level of granularity present in terms and definitions within glossary elements of documents in a domain corpus 110.”. Para. 86, “FIG. 8 illustrates a high-level logic flowchart of a process and computer program for collecting term and gloss pairs from glossaries of documents of a domain.”. Thus, receive an input that identifies a term and a definition of the term.);
generate a globally unique identifier (GUID) that uniquely identifies the input (Para. 30, a glossary element with a document refers to information in the document that specifies a term and a corresponding definition of the term. In one example, glossary elements within documents 112 may include, but are not limited to, elements in a section marked by a header such as "glossary", "definition", or other glossary identifier, i.e., a globally unique identifier. Para. 35, “a glossary identifier 214 of domain extension controller 130 searches collection of documents 212 to identify each glossary section if present within each document, and collects the identified glossary sections in a glossary collection 216. In one example, glossary identifier 214 may identify a glossary section within a document by searching for a section of a document with a heading of "glossary", "definitions", or other heading word indicating a section of definitions assigned to terms.”. Thus, the glossary identifier is a globally unique identifier (GUID) that uniquely identifies the input.);
store the input and the GUID in a data store (Fig. 1, Para. 26, a domain extension controller 130 minimizes the time, financial expense, and error proneness of generating updated taxonomy 132 by automatically extending the entries in initial taxonomy 124, to generate updated taxonomy 132, based on the level of granularity present in terms and definitions within glossary elements of documents in a domain corpus 110, i.e., data store. Para. 35, a glossary identifier 214, i.e., the GUID, of domain extension controller 130 searches collection of documents 212 to identify each glossary section if present within each document, and collects the identified glossary sections in a glossary collection 216. In one example, glossary identifier 214 may identify a glossary section within a document by searching for a section of a document with a heading of "glossary", "definitions", or other heading word indicating a section of definitions assigned to terms.);
assign the input and the GUID to a taxonomy tree, wherein the input and the GUID are assigned to a node within a hierarchy of the taxonomy tree (Para. 43, “If interference controller 262 identifies noun phrase 264 in the terms of collection of pairs 220, interference controller 262 builds an unanchored tiny taxonomy 270 with the current entry term as a child node and the other matching glossary entry term as a parent node in the hierarchy. If interference controller 262 is able to successfully map the parent entry term to the current taxonomy, then mapper 230 maps the entirety of tiny taxonomy 270 to the current taxonomy.”. Thus, the input and the GUID are assigned to a node within a hierarchy of the taxonomy tree.);
apply the ontology to a document to verify use of terminology in the document (Para. 28, “NLP services may apply one or more types of annotators, including rule-based annotators and statistical annotators, that apply rules or statistics to documents 112 in domain corpus 110 to automate document annotation.”. Para. 101, “FIG. 11 illustrates a high-level logic flowchart of a process and computer program for applying a tiny function to evaluate whether a noun phrase extracted from a first <term, gloss> pair is present in another <term, gloss> pair in a glossary extracted from one or more documents of a domain corpus to support mapping the first <term, gloss > pair to a current taxonomy for the domain.”.); and
modify terminology of the document based upon the verification (Para. 54, “by automatically determining that "circuit breaker" is a subcategory of an existing entry in taxonomy1 304, domain extension controller 130 efficiently extends initial taxonomy 302 based on extracting a noun phrase from a glossary definition within a document of a document corpus and identifying the noun phrase as matching an existing term in taxonomy1 304, to automatically extend the granularity available in a glossary definition into updated taxonomy 320, without requiring an evaluation of each word within a glossary definition with each existing term in taxonomy1 304.”. Para. 59, “by automatically generating a tiny taxonomy identifying that that "circuit breaker" is a subcategory of a noun phrase of "electrical component" and mapping the tiny taxonomy to the current taxonomy, domain extension controller 130 efficiently extends initial taxonomy 402 based on a glossary definition into updated taxonomy 420, without requiring an evaluation of each word within a glossary definition with each existing term in glossary2 408.”.).
BELLER further discloses mapping the taxonomy tree in [Para. 59], “by automatically generating a tiny taxonomy identifying that that "circuit breaker" is a subcategory of a noun phrase of "electrical component" and mapping the tiny taxonomy to the current taxonomy, domain extension controller 130 efficiently extends initial taxonomy 402 based on a glossary definition into updated taxonomy 420, without requiring an evaluation of each word within a glossary definition with each existing term in glossary2 408.”.
BELLER does not explicitly disclose map the taxonomy tree to an ontology.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vogel discloses map the taxonomy tree to an ontology (Fig. 2, 6-7, 15, Para. 37, The mapping component 106B may perform a mapping between the two systems as described below in more detail below to generate the ontology of the system. In the automotive industry example described below, the mapping may be performed between the mechanical system and a universal parts system to generate an automotive parts ontology, i.e., map the taxonomy tree to an ontology. Para. 43, the method may then perform a mapping of the meronymy and a taxonomy to build the ontology (206.), i.e., map the taxonomy tree to an ontology. For example, the system shown in FIG. 1 for example, such as the mapping component 106B, may perform this process. In an example of an automotive parts ontology, a vehicle systems meronymy and a universal parts taxonomy may be used during the process to build an automotive mechanical systems ontology. The mapping of the meronymy and the taxonomy may use links (shown in ATL in the examples below) that allow the components of the meronymy and the taxonomy to be coupled to each other. FIGS. 6-7 illustrate an example of a mapping of an automotive meronymy and an automotive taxonomy into a built ontology.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of BELLER by performing mapping between the two systems such as the taxonomy of BELLER to build the ontology as disclosed by Vogel (Para. 37; 43). The mapping of the meronymy and the taxonomy may use links that allow the components of the meronymy and the taxonomy to be coupled to each other (Vogel, Fig. 6-7, Para. 43). One of the ordinary skills in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order to build, maintain and verify the automotive mechanical systems ontology by performing the mapping between the two systems as suggested by Vogel (Para. 38).
As to claim 11, BELLER discloses a method, comprising: receiving, by a computing device, an input identifying a term and a definition of the term (Fig. 4, 8, Para. 36, a pair extractor 218 evaluates each entry in each glossary within glossary collection 216 to extract a term and gloss pair, also described as a <term, gloss> pair, i.e., a term and a definition of the term. In one example, pair extractor 218 extracts a term and gloss by parsing a regular expression based on punctuation, such as a colon or dash, or formatting, such as bold or italicized text, to identify a term and a gloss.”. Para. 26, “a domain extension controller 130 minimizes the time, financial expense, and error proneness of generating updated taxonomy 132 by automatically extending the entries in initial taxonomy 124, to generate updated taxonomy 132, based on the level of granularity present in terms and definitions within glossary elements of documents in a domain corpus 110.”. Para. 86, “FIG. 8 illustrates a high-level logic flowchart of a process and computer program for collecting term and gloss pairs from glossaries of documents of a domain.”. Thus, receive an input that identifies a term and a definition of the term.);
generating, by the computing device, a globally unique identifier (GUID) that uniquely identifies the input (Para. 30, a glossary element with a document refers to information in the document that specifies a term and a corresponding definition of the term. In one example, glossary elements within documents 112 may include, but are not limited to, elements in a section marked by a header such as "glossary", "definition", or other glossary identifier, i.e., a globally unique identifier. Para. 35, “a glossary identifier 214 of domain extension controller 130 searches collection of documents 212 to identify each glossary section if present within each document, and collects the identified glossary sections in a glossary collection 216. In one example, glossary identifier 214 may identify a glossary section within a document by searching for a section of a document with a heading of "glossary", "definitions", or other heading word indicating a section of definitions assigned to terms.”. Thus, the glossary identifier is a globally unique identifier (GUID) that uniquely identifies the input.);
assigning, by the computing device, the input and the GUID to a taxonomy tree, wherein the input and the GUID are assigned to a node within a hierarchy of the taxonomy tree (Para. 43, “If interference controller 262 identifies noun phrase 264 in the terms of collection of pairs 220, interference controller 262 builds an unanchored tiny taxonomy 270 with the current entry term as a child node and the other matching glossary entry term as a parent node in the hierarchy. If interference controller 262 is able to successfully map the parent entry term to the current taxonomy, then mapper 230 maps the entirety of tiny taxonomy 270 to the current taxonomy.”. Thus, the input and the GUID are assigned to a node within a hierarchy of the taxonomy tree.);
applying the ontology to a document to verify use of terminology in the documents (Para. 28, “NLP services may apply one or more types of annotators, including rule-based annotators and statistical annotators, that apply rules or statistics to documents 112 in domain corpus 110 to automate document annotation.”. Para. 101, “FIG. 11 illustrates a high-level logic flowchart of a process and computer program for applying a tiny function to evaluate whether a noun phrase extracted from a first <term, gloss> pair is present in another <term, gloss> pair in a glossary extracted from one or more documents of a domain corpus to support mapping the first <term, gloss > pair to a current taxonomy for the domain.”.); and
modifying terminology of the document based upon the verification (Para. 54, “by automatically determining that "circuit breaker" is a subcategory of an existing entry in taxonomy1 304, domain extension controller 130 efficiently extends initial taxonomy 302 based on extracting a noun phrase from a glossary definition within a document of a document corpus and identifying the noun phrase as matching an existing term in taxonomy1 304, to automatically extend the granularity available in a glossary definition into updated taxonomy 320, without requiring an evaluation of each word within a glossary definition with each existing term in taxonomy1 304.”. Para. 59, “by automatically generating a tiny taxonomy identifying that that "circuit breaker" is a subcategory of a noun phrase of "electrical component" and mapping the tiny taxonomy to the current taxonomy, domain extension controller 130 efficiently extends initial taxonomy 402 based on a glossary definition into updated taxonomy 420, without requiring an evaluation of each word within a glossary definition with each existing term in glossary2 408.”.).
BELLER further discloses mapping the taxonomy tree in [Para. 59], “by automatically generating a tiny taxonomy identifying that that "circuit breaker" is a subcategory of a noun phrase of "electrical component" and mapping the tiny taxonomy to the current taxonomy, domain extension controller 130 efficiently extends initial taxonomy 402 based on a glossary definition into updated taxonomy 420, without requiring an evaluation of each word within a glossary definition with each existing term in glossary2 408.”.
BELLER does not explicitly disclose mapping the taxonomy tree to an ontology.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vogel discloses mapping the taxonomy tree to an ontology (Fig. 2, 6-7, 15, Para. 37, The mapping component 106B may perform a mapping between the two systems as described below in more detail below to generate the ontology of the system. In the automotive industry example described below, the mapping may be performed between the mechanical system and a universal parts system to generate an automotive parts ontology, i.e., mapping the taxonomy tree to an ontology. Para. 43, the method may then perform a mapping of the meronymy and a taxonomy to build the ontology (206.), i.e., mapping the taxonomy tree to an ontology. For example, the system shown in FIG. 1 for example, such as the mapping component 106B, may perform this process. In an example of an automotive parts ontology, a vehicle systems meronymy and a universal parts taxonomy may be used during the process to build an automotive mechanical systems ontology. The mapping of the meronymy and the taxonomy may use links (shown in ATL in the examples below) that allow the components of the meronymy and the taxonomy to be coupled to each other. FIGS. 6-7 illustrate an example of a mapping of an automotive meronymy and an automotive taxonomy into a built ontology.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of BELLER by performing mapping between the two systems such as the taxonomy of BELLER to build the ontology as disclosed by Vogel (Para. 37; 43). The mapping of the meronymy and the taxonomy may use links that allow the components of the meronymy and the taxonomy to be coupled to each other (Vogel, Fig. 6-7, Para. 43). One of the ordinary skills in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order to build, maintain and verify the automotive mechanical systems ontology by performing the mapping between the two systems as suggested by Vogel (Para. 38).
As to claims 4 and 20, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11 above. In addition, BELLER discloses wherein the hierarchy comprises one or more sub-nodes, the one or more sub-nodes sharing one or more attributes with the node (Para. 43, “If interference controller 262 identifies noun phrase 264 in the terms of collection of pairs 220, interference controller 262 builds an unanchored tiny taxonomy 270 with the current entry term as a child node and the other matching glossary entry term as a parent node in the hierarchy. If interference controller 262 is able to successfully map the parent entry term to the current taxonomy, then mapper 230 maps the entirety of tiny taxonomy 270 to the current taxonomy.”. Para. 67, “mapper 230 identifies that the noun phrase of "electrical safety device" is present in taxonomy4 and updates the current taxonomy with the term in the <term1,gloss1> pair including the see also term of 'circuit breaker' and the mapped to see also term of "fuse", mapped to a same node..”. Thus, the hierarchy comprises one or more sub-nodes, the one or more sub-nodes sharing one or more attributes with the node.).
As to claim 5, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above. In addition, Vogel discloses wherein the taxonomy tree is configured to be automatically mapped to an ontology (Fig. 2, 6-7, 15, Para. 37, The mapping component 106B may perform a mapping between the two systems as described below in more detail below to generate the ontology of the system. In the automotive industry example described below, the mapping may be performed between the mechanical system and a universal parts system to generate an automotive parts ontology, i.e., mapping the taxonomy tree to an ontology. Para. 43, the method may then perform a mapping of the meronymy and a taxonomy to build the ontology (206.), i.e., mapping the taxonomy tree to an ontology. For example, the system shown in FIG. 1 for example, such as the mapping component 106B, may perform this process. In an example of an automotive parts ontology, a vehicle systems meronymy and a universal parts taxonomy may be used during the process to build an automotive mechanical systems ontology. The mapping of the meronymy and the taxonomy may use links (shown in ATL in the examples below) that allow the components of the meronymy and the taxonomy to be coupled to each other. FIGS. 6-7 illustrate an example of a mapping of an automotive meronymy and an automotive taxonomy into a built ontology. Thus, the taxonomy tree is configured to be automatically mapped to an ontology.).
As to claim 15, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 11 above. In addition, BELLER discloses comprising storing the input in a data dictionary, wherein the stored input is identifiable by the corresponding GUID (Fig. 1, Para. 26, a domain extension controller 130 minimizes the time, financial expense, and error proneness of generating updated taxonomy 132 by automatically extending the entries in initial taxonomy 124, to generate updated taxonomy 132, based on the level of granularity present in terms and definitions within glossary elements of documents in a domain corpus 110, i.e., data dictionary. Para. 35, a glossary identifier 214, i.e., the GUID, of domain extension controller 130 searches collection of documents 212 to identify each glossary section if present within each document, and collects the identified glossary sections in a glossary collection 216. In one example, glossary identifier 214 may identify a glossary section within a document by searching for a section of a document with a heading of "glossary", "definitions", or other heading word indicating a section of definitions assigned to terms. Thus, the stored input is identifiable by the corresponding GUID.).
7. Claims 2-3, 6-10, 13-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BELLER AND Vogel as applied above and further in view of OMOIGUI (previously presented) (US 2010/0070448 A1) hereinafter OMOIGUI.
As to claim 2, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above. BELLER AND Vogel do not disclose wherein the machine readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to export the taxonomy tree as an Excel or XML file.
However, in the same field of endeavor, OMOIGUI discloses wherein the machine readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to export the taxonomy tree as an Excel or XML file (Fig. 8, Para. 691, “2. One or more taxonomies that correspond to the supported semantic domains. These taxonomies contain a hierarchy of category names”. Para. 692, “3. A categorization engine that take a piece of text or XML and the semantic domain name with which the categorization is to be performed, and returns the categories in that domain that the text or XML belong to, along with the categorization scores (on a scale of 0-10 or, preferably, 0-100)”. Para. 693, “4. An XML Web Service that exposesAPis to add new supported semantic domains (and corresponding ontologies and taxonomies), to enumerate the categories for a given semantic domain, and to categorize a text or XML data blob”. Para. 2973, “The XML file may contain the following fields: DomainID, KnowledgeDomain, PublisherName, Creator, CategoryFolderDescription, AreasOflnterest, TaxonomyUri, Version, or Language.”. Para. 480, “users are able to easily export their client-side User State to another machine in order to replicate their Semantic Environment onto another machine. This is preferably achieved by transferring users' Agent list (recent and favorites), the metadata for the Agents (including the SQML buffers), users' local security credentials, etc. to an XML format that serializes all this state and enables the state to be easily transferred.”. Thus, the machine readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to export the taxonomy tree as an Excel or XML file.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of OMOIGUI into the combined method of BELLER AND Vogel such that the taxonomy tree can be exported as an XML file using the categorization of OMOIGUI (691-693). Transferring users' Agent list (recent and favorites), the metadata for the Agents (including the SQML buffers), users' local security credentials, etc. to an XML format that serializes all this state and enables the state to be easily transferred. One of the ordinary skills in the art would have motivated to make this modification in order to make it easy for a computer to generate data, read data, and ensure that the data structure is unambiguous by using the XML as suggested by OMOIGUI (Para. 405).
As to claim 3, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2 above. In addition, OMOIGUI discloses wherein the machine readable instructions cause the computing device to store the taxonomy tree as an Excel or XML file and further cause the computing device to bi-directionally convert the taxonomy tree from the Excel to the XML file (Para. 1549, “Each KDS will be responsible for ontology mapping (via an Ontology Mapper (OM)) and will periodically update the central Web service (the ontology depot) with an Ontology Mapping Table (OMT). The updates are bi-directional: the KDS will periodically update its ontologies and taxonomies from the central Web service and send updates of the OMT to the central Web service.”. Para. 3318, “This invention includes a query interface at the Librarian, visualization UI in the Librarian (to visualize the results-WITHOUT requiring any third-party tools), the means to generate pivot-table like views in the Librarian, the means of generating a Report View on a per-request and per-result basis in the Librarian (the Librarian becomes an Intelligence Viewer), the the means to present and transfer results into Excel using the Excel object model and using XML, etc.”. Para. 760, “Skin Templates. This describes the structure of a Skin and how it is applied from within the Results Browser. A Skin is preferably XSLT templates that convert the results XML to XHTML (and/or other languages like SVG) or proprietary presentation platforms like Flash MX and ActionScript. The templates can also insert styling information, e.g. for CSS styling.”. Thus, the machine readable instructions cause the computing device to store the taxonomy tree as an Excel or XML file and further cause the computing device to bi-directionally convert the taxonomy tree from the Excel to the XML file.).
As to claims 6 and 13, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 5 and 11 above. In addition, OMOIGUI discloses wherein the ontology comprises a World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) format (Para. 3011, “The Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C) has proposed a set of standards, under the umbrella term the "Semantic Web," for tagging information with metadata and/or semantic markup in order to infuse meaning into information and/or in order to make information easier for machines to process. The Semantic Web effort also includes standards to creating and/or maintaining ontologies which, in the context of information retrieval, are libraries and/or tools that help users formally express what information concepts mean and/or which also help machines disambiguate keywords and/or interpret them in a given domain of knowledge.”. Thus, the ontology comprises a World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) format.).
As to claim 7, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5 above. In addition, OMOIGUI discloses wherein the ontology comprises a Web Ontology Language (OWL) (Para. 3016, “Semantic metadata relies on ontologies, which generally defined, are tools and/or libraries that describe concepts, categories, objects, and/or relationships in a particular domain. The W3C recently approved the Web Ontology Language (OWL) which is a standard for ontology publishers to use to create, maintain, and/or share ontologies (see http://www.w3c.org/2001/sw/Web0nt/). This is a standard which accelerates the development of ontologies and/or ontology dependent applications.”. Thus, the ontology comprises a Web Ontology Language (OWL).).
As to claims 8 and 19, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11 above. In addition, OMOIGUI discloses wherein the input further identifies at least one of a source of the term, a date of when the definition was created, an abbreviation of the term, one or more related terms, a validation indicator, or a reference code (Para. 2939, the client semantic runtime 1502 accepts input (e.g., via an exposed API) from the user interface 1504, searches the cached ontology data based on the input, and returns output containing relevant terms. The input may be comprised of the source URI of the information, i.e., source of the term, displayed in the user interface 1504 and the semantic search terms used to generate the displayed information. Thus, the input further identifies at least one of a source of the term, a date of when the definition was created, an abbreviation of the term, one or more related terms, a validation indicator, or a reference code.).
As to claims 9 and 18, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11 above. In addition, OMOIGUI discloses wherein the input is imported and exported, either in an XML format or an Excel format (Para. 1408, “The semantic browser will show UI (likely a wizard) that will allow the user to select which of the user state types to import or export. The UI will also ask the user whether to include identity/logon information. When the UI is invoked, the semantic browser will serialize the user state into an XML document that has fields corresponding to the metadata of all the user state types. When the XML document is imported, the semantic browser will navigate the XML document nodes and add or set the user state types in the client environment corresponding to the nodes in the XML document.”. Para. 480, “users are able to easily export their client-side User State to another machine in order to replicate their Semantic Environment onto another machine. This is preferably achieved by transferring users' Agent list (recent and favorites), the metadata for the Agents (including the SQML buffers), users' local security credentials, etc. to an XML format that serializes all this state and enables the state to be easily transferred.”. Para. 2970, “the knowledge community returns data in XML format that indicates whether an object is a best bet or recommendation.”. Thus, the input is imported and exported, either in an XML format or an Excel format.).
As to claim 10, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above. In addition, OMOIGUI discloses wherein the input is configured to be locked from editing once stored in the data store (Para. 2477, “Add the pruned categories to a local cache for super-fast lookup. The cache may be guarded by a readerwriter lock since the cache may be a shared resource. This ensures cache coherency without imposing a performance penalty with multiple simultaneous queries.”. Para. 3349, “It strengthens and reinforces strategic lock-in because the learned ontological data becomes a key proprietary asset which is accretive in value as time goes on and as the community builds.”. Thus, the input is configured to be locked from editing once stored in the data store.).
As to claim 14, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 13 above. In addition, OMOIGUI discloses wherein the W3C format comprises a Web Ontology Language (OWL) or Resource Description Framework (Para. 3016, “Semantic metadata relies on ontologies, which generally defined, are tools and/or libraries that describe concepts, categories, objects, and/or relationships in a particular domain. The W3C recently approved the Web Ontology Language (OWL) which is a standard for ontology publishers to use to create, maintain, and/or share ontologies (see http://www.w3c.org/2001/sw/Web0nt/). This is a standard which accelerates the development of ontologies and/or ontology dependent applications.”. Thus, the ontology comprises a Web Ontology Language (OWL).).
As to claim 16, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 15 above. In addition, OMOIGUI discloses wherein the stored data, taxonomy and ontology are locked after validation (Para. 2477, “Add the pruned categories to a local cache for super-fast lookup. The cache may be guarded by a readerwriter lock since the cache may be a shared resource. This ensures cache coherency without imposing a performance penalty with multiple simultaneous queries.”. Para. 3349, “It strengthens and reinforces strategic lock-in because the learned ontological data becomes a key proprietary asset which is accretive in value as time goes on and as the community builds.”. Thus, the input is configured to be locked from editing once stored in the data store.).
As to claim 17, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 11 above. In addition, OMOIGUI discloses wherein the taxonomy tree is stored in a data store in Excel or XML format, wherein the stored taxonomy tree is configured for bi-directionally conversion between Excel and XML formats (Para. 1549, “Each KDS will be responsible for ontology mapping (via an Ontology Mapper (OM)) and will periodically update the central Web service (the ontology depot) with an Ontology Mapping Table (OMT). The updates are bi-directional: the KDS will periodically update its ontologies and taxonomies from the central Web service and send updates of the OMT to the central Web service.”. Para. 3318, “This invention includes a query interface at the Librarian, visualization UI in the Librarian (to visualize the results-WITHOUT requiring any third-party tools), the means to generate pivot-table like views in the Librarian, the means of generating a Report View on a per-request and per-result basis in the Librarian (the Librarian becomes an Intelligence Viewer), the the means to present and transfer results into Excel using the Excel object model and using XML, etc.”. Para. 760, “Skin Templates. This describes the structure of a Skin and how it is applied from within the Results Browser. A Skin is preferably XSLT templates that convert the results XML to XHTML (and/or other languages like SVG) or proprietary presentation platforms like Flash MX and ActionScript. The templates can also insert styling information, e.g. for CSS styling.”. Thus, the taxonomy tree is stored in a data store in Excel or XML format, wherein the stored taxonomy tree is configured for bi-directionally conversion between Excel and XML formats.).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant argues, see pages 6-8, regarding the 101 rejections, that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Applicant further amended the claims, which further recite mental process and are directed to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and are directed to a judicial exception. A user can mentally (or with the aid of pen and paper) perform generating, assigning, mapping, applying and modifying steps. Applicant has not provided any proof or evidence that these steps are not performable mentally.
Applicant argues that the claims provide technical improvement by verifying appropriate use of domain terminology in a document and then modifying terminology of the document based upon the verification is a practical application that provides improvement by ensuring consistent use of the terminology. However, the claims only recite mentally performable steps coupled with additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine and conventional or instructions to apply the judicial exception with a generic computer component. The claims include no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-15, filed on January 26, 2026, with respect
to the rejections of claims 1-11 and 13-20 under 35 USC §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of newly found references.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mayer et al. (US 2010/0250573 A1) teaches search term management in an electronic discovery system.
He et al. (US 2013/0018828 A1) teaches automated labeling of text documents using ontologies.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SOLAIMAN BHUYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00am-5:00pm 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, Charles Rones can be reached on 571-272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohammad S Bhuyan/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168