The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 26 May 2026. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 20 is withdrawn.
Claim 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
There is no art rejection for claims 1-19.
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.
Judicial Exception
Claims 1-19 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-19
(Independent Claims)
With regards to claim 1, the claim recites a process, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “… to determine a text representation representing the text data; … to determine a label graph representation representing the label graph; … to determine an output label and a training loss, based on the text representation and the label graph representation; and refining … the text classification model based on the training loss” (mental process and/or math concept), 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. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “to determine”, “refining”, in the limitation citied above encompasses observing / analyzing / processing text data using abstract data representation models , which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. 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.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: “processor”, “applying, with the processor, a text encoder of the text classification mode …”, “applying, with the processor, a graph encoder of the text classification model …”, “applying, with the processor, a graph neural network of the text classification model …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f); (b) “receiving, with a processor, text data as training input; receiving, with the processor, a label graph, the label graph representing semantic relations between a plurality of labels, the label graph including nodes connected by edges”, these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of pre-solution data input as described in MPEP.2106.05(g). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of: (a) “processor”, “applying, with the processor, a text encoder of the text classification mode …”, “applying, with the processor, a graph encoder of the text classification model …”, “applying, with the processor, a graph neural network of the text classification model …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f); (b) “receiving, with a processor, text data as training input; receiving, with the processor, a label graph, the label graph representing semantic relations between a plurality of labels, the label graph including nodes connected by edges”, which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data input (MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
With regards to claim 2, the claim includes limitation “wherein (i) each respective node of the label graph represents a respective label from a plurality of labels and (ii) each respective edge of the label graph represents a semantic relation between the respective labels represented by the nodes connected by the respective edge” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data with abstract data representation models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 3, the claim includes limitation “wherein the plurality of labels includes a subset of labels that are valid outputs of the text classification model and a subset of labels that are not valid outputs of the text classification model” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data with abstract data representation models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 4, the claim includes limitation “wherein the label graph further includes label descriptions associated with respective nodes of the label graph, each label description including text data that describes the label represented by the associated node of the label graph” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data with abstract data representation models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 5, the claim includes limitation “wherein edges of the label graph represent at least two different types of semantic relations” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data with abstract data representation models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 6, the claim includes limitation “ …determining a sequence of tokens representing the text data; and determining the text representation as a sequence of vector representations, each vector representation representing a respective token from the sequence of tokens” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data with abstract data representation models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 7, the claim includes limitation “determining, for each respective node in the label graph, a node embedding by encoding text describing the label represented by the respective node” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data with abstract data representation models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 8, the claim includes limitation “wherein text describing the label represented by the respective node is a concatenation of a label name and a label description” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data with abstract data representation models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 9, the claim includes limitation “…determining, for each respective edge in the label graph, an edge embedding depending on a type of semantic relation represented by the respective edge” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data with abstract data representation models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 10, the claim includes limitation “…initializing a relation embedding for each respective type of semantic relation in a plurality of types of semantic relations as a respective random value, determining, for each respective edge in the label graph, the edge embedding as the relation embedding corresponding to the type of semantic relation represented by the respective edge” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data with abstract data representation models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 11, the claim includes limitation “…iteratively updating the text representation and the label graph representation with the graph neural network to determine a final text representation and a final label graph representation; and determining the output label based on the final text representation and the final label graph representation” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data with abstract data representation models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 12, the claim includes limitation “wherein the iteratively updating includes a plurality of iterations that each determine an updated text representation and an updated label graph representation based on a previous text representation and a previous label graph representation, the final text representation and the final label graph representation being the updated text representation and the updated label graph representation, respectively, from a final iteration of the plurality of iterations” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data with abstract data representation models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 13, the claim includes limitation “…each iteration in the plurality of iterations comprising: determining updated node embeddings based on the previous label graph representation; determining an affinity matrix indicating a similarity between the updated node embeddings and the previous text representation; determining the updated text representation based on the previous text representation and the affinity matrix; and determining the updated label graph representation based on the updated node embeddings and the affinity matrix” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data with abstract data representation models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 14, the claim includes limitation “each iteration in the plurality of iterations comprising: determining an attended text representation based on the previous text representation and the affinity matrix; determining an attended label graph representation based on the updated node embeddings and the affinity matrix; determining the updated text representation based on the previous text representation, the attended text representation, and the attended label graph representation; and determining the updated label graph representation based on the updated node embeddings, the attended label graph representation, and the attended text representation” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data with abstract data representation models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 15, the claim includes limitation “the determining the attended text representation further comprising: determining a first attention map by performing a normalization of the affinity matrix along a first dimension; and determining the attended text representation based on the previous text representation and the first attention map” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data with abstract data representation models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 16, the claim includes limitation “the determining the attended label graph representation further comprising: determining a second attention map by performing a normalization of the affinity matrix along a second dimension; and determining the attended label graph representation based on the updated node embeddings and the second attention map” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data with abstract data representation models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 17, the claim includes limitation “the determining the output label further comprising: determining the output label using a multi-layer perceptron applied to the final text representation and the final label graph representation” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data with abstract data representation models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 18, the claim includes limitation “the determining the output label further comprising: modifying the final label graph representation to remove node embeddings representing a subset of labels represented in the label graph that are not valid outputs of the text classification model” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data with abstract data representation models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 19, the claim includes limitation “… determining the training loss based on the output label and a ground truth label associated with the text data” (mental process and/or math concept), which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data with abstract data representation models, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. 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. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 include allowable subject matter since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per, MPEP §2111.01 or Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069, 1069 (Fed.Cir. 1999), none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in claims 1-19.
In interpreting the claims, in light of the specification filed on 12 April 2023, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior arts of record.
Regarding the amended independent claims, the primary reason for the allowance is the inclusion of the specific claimed process / structure of co-attentive fusion of a text encoder with GNN-encoded multi-relational label graph to combine structured label semantics with input text to iteratively refining the classification model for text classification.
None of the cited prior art references, singly or in combination, fully teaches all limitations of independent claim 1.
Regarding the dependent claims, which include all the limitations of the independent claims, are also allowed.
The followings are references close to the invention claimed:
Creed et al., US-PGPUB NO.20210081717A1 [hereafter Creed] teaches GNN with attention. However Creed does not teach the specific claimed process / structure of co-attentive fusion of a text encoder with GNN-encoded multi-relational label graph to combine structured label semantics with input text to iteratively refining the classification model for text classification.
Jha et al., US-PATENT NO.12505688B2 [hereafter Jha] teaches AI encoder for text representation. However Jha does not teach the specific claimed process / structure of co-attentive fusion of a text encoder with GNN-encoded multi-relational label graph to combine structured label semantics with input text to iteratively refining the classification model for text classification.
Roitman et al., US-PATENT NO.1179885B2 [hereafter Roitman] teaches attentive text processing with trained NN models. However Roitman does not teach the specific claimed process / structure of co-attentive fusion of a text encoder with GNN-encoded multi-relational label graph to combine structured label semantics with input text to iteratively refining the classification model for text classification.
Zhang et al., “Every document owns its structure: inductive text classification via graph neural networks”, Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, pages 334-339, 2020 [hereafter Zhang] teaches text classification via GNNs. However Zhang does not teach the specific claimed process / structure of co-attentive fusion of a text encoder with GNN-encoded multi-relational label graph to combine structured label semantics with input text to iteratively refining the classification model for text classification.
Zhu et al., “TextGNN: improving text encoder via graph neural network in sponsored search”, WWW’21, 2021 [hereafter Zhu] teaches text encoder using GNNs. However Zhu does not teach the specific claimed process / structure of co-attentive fusion of a text encoder with GNN-encoded multi-relational label graph to combine structured label semantics with input text to iteratively refining the classification model for text classification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
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.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights