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 06/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 2, 10 and 11 have been amended. Claims 2-11 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
Applicant contends that the amended claims satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. For example, amended claim 1 recites that the at least one processor is configured, in part, to "display, on a display, the degree of how close the search word is to which subset in a node corresponding to the search word" and "move, on the display, the node in response to a user operation to the node." Amended claims 10 and 11 recite similar features. At least paras. [0153]-[0156] of the published application (US20230409645) and FIGs. 25 and 26 support the above features. For example, para. [0153] provides "Further, in the undirected graph shown in FIG. 25 , the user may be able to move the node. To move a node, for example, a method of clicking a desired node with a mouse or tapping a desired node with a touch panel to select a node and dragging the selected node to any other places can be considered." Applicant contends that at least the above features amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception. In particular, the above features relate to displaying on a display (e.g., displaying, "on a display, the degree of how close the search word is to which subset in a node 5 corresponding to the search word") and responding to interactions between a user and the device (i.e., moving, "on the display, the node in response to a user operation to the node").
Examiner respectfully submits that the steps of “generate, based on a predetermined number of high-order pages in a search result among search results obtained from a search engine, the search results being for each of a plurality of search words, a multidimensional feature amount of each of the plurality of search words; determine similarity of the multidimensional feature amounts between one search word and a plurality of other search words; acquire a degree of how close each search word is to which subset by classifying each of the plurality of search words into one or more subsets among a plurality of subsets based on the determined similarity; and display the degree of how close the search word is to which subset in a node corresponding to the search word, move the node in response to a user operation to the node, wherein the node is divided into a plurality of parts such that each of the parts corresponds to each of the subsets and that each area of each of the parts corresponds to the degree of how close the search word is to which subset” encompass a concept that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid.
Although the claim recites “display, on a display, the degree of how close…” and “move, on the display, the node in response to a user operation…”, these steps merely invoke generic computer components (a display, at least one processor) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The claimed “displaying” and “moving” only present information to a user and respond to generic user interaction, without improving the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC §101 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
Regarding the newly amended claim 2, Applicant argues that above features of "display, on a display, the degree of how close the search word is to which subset in a node corresponding to the search word" and "move, on the display, the node in response to a user operation to the node" and that "the node is divided into a plurality of parts such that each of the parts corresponds to each of the subsets and that each area of each of the parts corresponds to the degree of how close the search word is to which subset." are not disclosed in Fig. 2 of Radinski since none of the circles in Fig. 2 of Radinski is a node that is "divided into a plurality of parts such that each of the parts corresponds to each of the subsets and that each area of each of the parts corresponds to the degree of how close the search word is to which subset," as recited in the amended claims.
In response, Examiner relies on a new combination of references.
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 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the guidance set forth in MPEP 2106 which has incorporated the 2019 PEG. Independent claim 2 recites an evaluation apparatus, independent claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium and independent claim 11 recites an evaluation method. Therefore, Step 1 is satisfied for claims 2-11.
The independent claim 2 recites: An evaluation apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to:
generate, based on a predetermined number of high-order pages in a search result among search results obtained from a search engine, the search results being for each of a plurality of search words, a multidimensional feature amount of each of the plurality of search words;
determine similarity of the multidimensional feature amounts between one search word and a plurality of other search words;
acquire a degree of how close each search word is to which subset by classifying each of the plurality of search words into one or more subsets among a plurality of subsets based on the determined similarity; and
display, on a display, the degree of how close the search word is to which subset in a node corresponding to the search word; and
move, on the display, the node in response to a user operation to the node,
wherein the node is divided into a plurality of parts such that each of the parts corresponds to each of the subsets and that each area of each of the parts corresponds to the degree of how close the search word is to which subset.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to an evaluation apparatus, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The above-noted limitations of generate, determine, acquire, display and move as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, generate, based on a predetermined number of high-order pages in a search result among search results obtained from a search engine, the search results being for each of a plurality of search words, a multidimensional feature amount of each of the plurality of search words; determine similarity of the multidimensional feature amounts between one search word and a plurality of other search words;
acquire a degree of how close each search word is to which subset by classifying each of the plurality of search words into one or more subsets among a plurality of subsets based on the determined similarity; and display the degree of how close the search word is to which subset in a node corresponding to the search word, move the node in response to a user operation to the node,
wherein the node is divided into a plurality of parts such that each of the parts corresponds to each of the subsets and that each area of each of the parts corresponds to the degree of how close the search word is to which subset in the context of this claim encompasses a concept performed in the human mind (including observations and preform an evaluation, judgment, and opinion) and can be performed with pen and paper.
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: In Step 2A Prong 2, we are directed to Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
The claim 2 recites additional element of at least one processor and a display.
The at least one processor and display are so generic that represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer.
Accordingly, this 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. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In particular, the claim 2 recites additional elements of at least one processor and a display.
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 of “at least one processor” and “display” are simply performing a generic computer function amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to the evaluation apparatus, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 3 recites “display each of the plurality of search words and the similarity of the multidimensional feature amount to another search word in a tabular form.” The above-noted limitation of claim 3, as drafted, is a process that, 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 claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements - the processor
The processor in those steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of “display” steps) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In particular, the claim only recites additional elements- the processor
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 “the processor” is simply performing a generic computer function of “display” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to the evaluation apparatus, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 4 recites “dispose the plurality of search words in a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and display the similarity of the multidimensional feature amount between corresponding search words at an intersection point in each direction.” The above-noted limitation of claim 4, as drafted, is a process that, 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 claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements - the processor
The processor in those steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of “dispose and display” steps) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In particular, the claim only recites additional elements- the processor
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 “the processor” is simply performing a generic computer function of “dispose and display” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to the evaluation apparatus, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 3, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 5 recites “dispose the plurality of search words in a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and display an intersection of the first and second directions in a mode depending on the similarity between corresponding search words.” The above-noted limitation of claim 5, as drafted, is a process that, 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 claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements - the processor
The processor in those steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of “dispose and display” steps) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In particular, the claim only recites additional elements- the processor
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 “the processor” is simply performing a generic computer function of “dispose and display” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to the evaluation apparatus, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 4, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 6 recites “dispose the plurality of search words in the first direction in an order depending on the similarity of the multidimensional feature amounts to another search word.” The above-noted limitation of claim 6, as drafted, is a process that, 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 claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements - the processor
The processor in those steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of “dispose” steps) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In particular, the claim only recites additional elements- the processor
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 “the processor” is simply performing a generic computer function of “dispose” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to the evaluation apparatus, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 6, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 7 recites “when one of the plurality of search words is selected by a user, dispose the plurality of search words in the first direction in descending order of the similarity of the multidimensional feature amounts to the selected search word.” The above-noted limitation of claim 7, as drafted, is a process that, 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 claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements - the processor
The processor in those steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of “dispose” steps) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In particular, the claim only recites additional elements- the processor
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 “the processor” is simply performing a generic computer function of “dispose” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to the evaluation apparatus, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 2, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the plurality of search words includes at least one common word.” The above-noted limitation of claim 8, as drafted, is a process that, 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 claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
There is no additional element integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, there is no additional element integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to the evaluation apparatus, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 2, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 9 recites “wherein each of the subset corresponds to a search need.” The above-noted limitation of claim 9, as drafted, is a process that, 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 claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
There is no additional element integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, there is no additional element integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
The independent claim 10 recites: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing an evaluation program that causes at least one processor to:
generate, based on a predetermined number of high-order pages in a search result among search results obtained from a search engine, the search results being for each of a plurality of search words, a multidimensional feature amount of each of the plurality of search words;
determine similarity of the multidimensional feature amounts between one search word and a plurality of other search words;
acquire a degree of how close each search word is to which subset by classifying each of the plurality of search words into one or more subsets among a plurality of subsets based on the determined similarity; and
display, on a display, the degree of how close the search word is to which subset in a node corresponding to the search word; and
move, on the display, the node in response to a user operation to the node,
wherein the node figure is divided into a plurality of parts such that each of the parts corresponds to each of the subsets and that each area of each of the parts corresponds to the degree of how close the search word is to which subset.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The above-noted limitations of generate, determine, acquire, display and move as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, generate, based on a predetermined number of high-order pages in a search result among search results obtained from a search engine, the search results being for each of a plurality of search words, a multidimensional feature amount of each of the plurality of search words; determine similarity of the multidimensional feature amounts between one search word and a plurality of other search words;
acquire a degree of how close each search word is to which subset by classifying each of the plurality of search words into one or more subsets among a plurality of subsets based on the determined similarity; display the degree of how close the search word is to which subset in a node corresponding to the search word; and move the node in response to a user operation to the node, wherein the node is divided into a plurality of parts such that each of the parts corresponds to each of the subsets and that each area of each of the parts corresponds to the degree of how close the search word is to which subset, in the context of this claim encompasses a concept performed in the human mind (including observations and preform an evaluation, judgment, and opinion) and can be performed with pen and paper.
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: In Step 2A Prong 2, we are directed to Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
The claim 10 recites additional element of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, at least one processor, and a display.
The non-transitory computer-readable medium, at least one processor and display are so generic that represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In particular, the claim 10 recites additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, at least one processor and display.
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 of “non-transitory computer-readable medium and at least one processor” and “display” are simply performing a generic computer function amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, this additional elements, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
The independent claim 11 recites: An evaluation method performed by at least one processor, the method comprising:
generating, based on a predetermined number of high-order pages in a search result among search results obtained from a search engine, the search results being for each of a plurality of search words, a multidimensional feature amount of each of the plurality of search words;
determine similarity of the multidimensional feature amounts between one search word and a plurality of other search words;
acquiring a degree of how close each search word is to which subset by classifying each of the plurality of search words into one or more subsets among a plurality of subsets based on the determined similarity; and
displaying, on a display, the degree of how close the search word is to which subset in a node corresponding to the search word; and
moving, on the display, the node in response to a user operation to the node,
wherein the node is divided into a plurality of parts such that each of the parts corresponds to each of the subsets and that each area of each of the parts corresponds to the degree of how close the search word is to which subset.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to an evaluation method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The above-noted limitations of generating, determine, acquiring, displaying and moving as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, generating, based on a predetermined number of high-order pages in a search result among search results obtained from a search engine, the search results being for each of a plurality of search words, a multidimensional feature amount of each of the plurality of search words; determine similarity of the multidimensional feature amounts between one search word and a plurality of other search words;
acquiring a degree of how close each search word is to which subset by classifying each of the plurality of search words into one or more subsets among a plurality of subsets based on the determined similarity; displaying the degree of how close the search word is to which subset in a node corresponding to the search word; and moving the node in response to a user operation to the node, wherein the node is divided into a plurality of parts such that each of the parts corresponds to each of the subsets and that each area of each of the parts corresponds to the degree of how close the search word is to which subset, in the context of this claim encompasses a concept performed in the human mind (including observations and preform an evaluation, judgment, and opinion) and can be performed with pen and paper.
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: In Step 2A Prong 2, we are directed to Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
The claim 11 recites additional element of at least one processor and a display.
The at least one processor and display are so generic that represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer.
Accordingly, this 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. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In particular, the claim 11 recites additional elements of at least one processor and a display.
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 of “at least one processor” and “the display” are simply performing a generic computer function amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 2 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radlinski (US 8,380, 723 B2) in view of Sakakibara (JP2017129925A) in further view of Krois (US9245055B2)
Regarding claim 2, Radlinski discloses: An evaluation apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to: generate the search results being for each of a plurality of search words, a multidimensional feature amount of each of the plurality of search words; (Radlinski, column 5, lines 1-6- a user … submit a query 120 to the information retrieval system in order to find relevant search results. The information retrieval system may provide at least one of; a suggestion 122 of a reformulated query, ranked search results 124; column 12, lines 35-40- weighting w c' of each cluster can be used in order to rank search results such that the most relevant search results are listed first. In another embodiment the weighting w c, of each cluster can be used to rank keywords in a keyword auction; column 3, line 55- The words contained in anchor text may determine the ranking that an associated web page will receive by search engines ; column 3, line 22- Those user input search terms are also referred to as a query ;column 6, lines 18-50, e.g. line 18- For example, the query-document pair records may be used to measure a degree of similarity between two queries… using a graph data structure a random walk process on that graph data structure may be used to provide the similarity measure… The click graph…line 41- obtain a random walk similarity measure for each pair of queries from the reformulation graph.) (Note: Examiner interprets that determining similarity through combination of query reformulation analysis, click behavior, and random walk similarity measures is corresponding to “a multidimensional feature amount of each of the plurality of search words”)
determine similarity of the multidimensional feature amounts between one search word and a plurality of other search words; (Radlinski, column 3, line 22- Those user input search terms are also referred to as a query ; column 6, lines 18-50, e.g. line 18- For example, the query-document pair records may be used to measure a degree of similarity between two queries… using a graph data structure a random walk process on that graph data structure may be used to provide the similarity measure… The click graph…line 41- obtain a random walk similarity measure for each pair of queries from the reformulation graph.) (Note: Examiner interprets that determining similarity through combination of query reformulation analysis, click behavior, and random walk similarity measures is corresponding to “a multidimensional feature amount of each of the plurality of search words”)
acquire a degree of how close each search word is to which subset by classifying each of the plurality of search words into one or more subsets among a plurality of subsets based on the determined similarity; (Radlinski, column 3, line 22- Those user input search terms are also referred to as a query ;column 6, line 55- The query intent inference engine is optionally arranged to carry out clustering of the nodes in the reformulation graph to produce clusters as illustrated in the bottom section of FIG. 2. The measure of similarity between the pairs of queries (such as the random walk similarity measure from the click graph) may be used to find clusters referred to herein as "intent clusters"; column 8, line 21- For each pair of queries 600 in the query neighborhood a similarity measure is obtained 602 from the query-document pairs record. A connection between nodes for the queries in the query neighborhood is added or removed 604 according to the similarity measure;)
display, on a display, the degree of how close the search word is to which subset
(Radlinski, Fig. 2, a graph data structure, clusters(corresponding to “subsets”); column 8, line 21- For each pair of queries 600 in the query neighborhood a similarity measure (corresponding to “the degree”) is obtained 602 from the query-document pairs record. A connection between nodes for the queries in the query neighborhood is added or removed 604 according to the similarity measure (corresponding to “the degree”); column 6, line 42- Edges between nodes are maintained where that similarity measure is above a specified threshold. For example, in FIG. 2, an edge is added between the nodes "home plans" and "luxury house plans" ;column 13, line 25- The display system may provide a graphical user interface, or other user interface of any suitable type although this is not essential. For example a display interface 1004 may be provided such as a web-based display interface or other display interface; column 3, line 47- In an example the query-document pair records are stored at the database 106 using a click graph data structure comprising nodes connected by edges, each node representing any of a document and a query and each edge representing at least one observed click; column 6, line 30- The click graph is a bipartite graph comprising nodes connected by edges.)
However Radlinski does not clearly disclose:
based on a predetermined number of high-order pages in a search result among search results obtained from a search engine; display, on a display, the degree of how close the search word is to which subset in a node corresponding to the search word; and move, on the display, the node in response to a user operation to the node, wherein the node is divided into a plurality of parts such that each of the parts corresponds to each of the subsets and that each area of each of the parts corresponds to the degree of how close the search word is to which subset.
However Sakakibara discloses:
based on a predetermined number of high-order pages in a search result among search results obtained from a search engine (Sakakibara , page 2, the last paragraph-A search result acquisition unit that acquires a search result of the search request from a search engine server device on the network; and a predetermined number of web pages that are higher in display order; page 3, 1st paragraph- Performing a third process for obtaining a morpheme-specific evaluation value indicating a degree of contribution of each morpheme to a rank of the analysis target page in a search result of the search using the target keyword as a search query, and the predetermined number of analysis target web pages As a result of analysis, a list in which the morphological evaluation values obtained for each of the above are arranged for each web page to be analyzed It is and a Shimesuru analysis means;)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Radlinski with the teaching of Sakakibara to perform measurement and trend analysis on the correlation between the display order after a search in a search engine and various terms included in each web page to be displayed, and uses the data to display a higher-level web (Sakakibara, page 2, 1st paragraph) and also to identify and accurately satisfy for high-level display of a web page, those important related words that are considered to be highly valued by search engines, (Sakakibara, page 2, 4th paragraph).
However Radlinski in view of Sakakibara does not clearly disclose:
display, on a display, the degree of how close the search word is to which subset in a node corresponding to the search word; and move, on the display, the node in response to a user operation to the node, wherein the node is divided into a plurality of parts such that each of the parts corresponds to each of the subsets and that each area of each of the parts corresponds to the degree of how close the search word is to which subset.
However Krois discloses:
display, on a display, the degree of how close the search word is to which subset in a node corresponding to the search word;
(Krois, Figures 2c, 2d, 2e; Fig. 5a-5c; Fig. 10; column 8, lines 51-58, e.g. a "semantic magnifier" by means of its visual focus as well as the weighted content relevance distribution contained therein; column 5, lines 1-67, e.g. These terms are connected in a "search engine" or by means of a correlation algorithm, which results in "Albert Einstein" as a preference vector which is displayed in the free field between the directions of the preference vectors… a rating or a correlation rank of the entity can be advantageously reflected by means of the size of the fields; )
and move, on the display, the node in response to a user operation to the node,
(Krois, fig. 6; column 10, lines 36-42, If a user is interested in the field 496 in the term "Napoleon", he can select this field by means of the cursor, this field 496 becoming the new central field 100 from FIG. 6. The distribution unit in turn determines relevant entities around this term. If the user now selects the field 491, this field 491 becomes the central field 100 from FIG. 7. One thus can go from the term "the pacific ocean" to the term "Carla Bruni".)
wherein the node is divided into a plurality of parts such that each of the parts corresponds to each of the subsets and that each area of each of the parts corresponds to the degree of how close the search word is to which subset.
(Krois, Figures 2c, 2d, 2e; Fig. 5a-5c; Fig. 7; Fig. 10; column 8, lines 51-58, e.g. a "semantic magnifier" by means of its visual focus as well as the weighted content relevance distribution contained therein; column 5, lines 1-67, e.g. These terms are connected in a "search engine" or by means of a correlation algorithm, which results in "Albert Einstein" as a preference vector which is displayed in the free field between the directions of the preference vectors… a rating or a correlation rank of the entity can be advantageously reflected by means of the size of the fields; column 10, lines 19-35, A variant of the rigid, geometrical grid is shown in FIG. 5, 20 which carries out further subdivisions of the corner fields in the outer circle field…In FIG. 5c, the central field 100 contains the term "the pacific ocean". The associated most similar terms are displayed in the first circle field 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207,208. The second circle 301 to 308 is displayed around the first circle. The information displayed in the first circle and in the second circle and in the further circles has been filled according to the method described in FIGS. 3 and 4.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Radlinski in view of Sakakibara with the teaching of Krois to allow the user to "flow" through the sea of data,(Krois, column 12, lines 17-20) and to simplify and improve navigation in great quantities of media contents, (Krois, column 1, lines 23-28) and also the necessity of explicitly formulated search inputs and the previous knowledge necessary for this search can be significantly reduced by visual selection methods and it is made possible to include individually relevant contexts not known so far as a basis for further search intentions. Thus, a rummaging and simultaneously coherent 10 browsing (controlled "serendipity-effect") can be made possible, (Krois, column 8, lines 4-11).
Claims 10 and 11 correspond to claim 2, and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 8, Radlinski in view of Sakakibara in view of Krois discloses all of the features with respect to claim 2 as outlined above. Claim 8 further recites: wherein the plurality of search words includes at least one common word. (Radlinski, column 5, line 57- the first reformulations are identified by examining frequent reformulations 202 of the original query 200 "house" (corresponding to “common word”). For example first reformulations 202 of the original query 200 "house" may be "house plans", "house MD" or "house TV show". The query neighborhood can be further expanded by including frequent reformulations 204 of the first reformulations 202. These are referred to as "second reformulations" for clarity. For example second reformulations of "house plans" may be "home plans" or "luxury house plans", second reformulations of" house TV show" may be "TV provider X" or "name of TV star" and a second reformulation of "house MD" may also be "name of TV star".)
Regarding claim 9, Radlinski in view of Sakakibara in view of Krois discloses all of the features with respect to claim 2 as outlined above. Claim 9 further recites: wherein each of the subset corresponds to a search need. (Radlinski, fig. 2; column 6, line 55- The query intent inference engine is optionally arranged to carry out clustering of the nodes in the reformulation graph to produce clusters as illustrated in the bottom section of FIG. 2. The measure of similarity between the pairs of queries ( such as the random walk similarity measure from the click graph) may be used to find clusters referred to herein as "intent clusters"; column 3, line 29- In order to assess the relevance of a document to a particular query an approach is to first infer the intent of a query. Different users may have different intents for the same query. For example a user inputting the query "House", may be searching for information about residential buildings, information about a television show of that name or other information unconnected to either; column 7, lines 1-9- In the example of FIG. 2 three intent clusters are produced. A cluster comprising "house plans", "home plans" and "luxury house plans" 208; a cluster comprising "house", "house TV show" and "house MD" 210 and a cluster comprising a single query "name of TV star" 212. Each intent cluster can be thought of as representing a particular intention of a user making a search for information. The individual queries in a cluster can be thought of as alternative queries that may be used for the particular intention of the cluster; (Note: Examiner interprets that “intent” is corresponding to “search needs”))
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radlinski (US 8,380, 723 B2) in view of Sakakibara (JP2017129925A) in view of Krois (US9245055B2) in further view of Kimura (JP2011003156A)
Regarding claim 3, Radlinski in view of Sakakibara in view of Krois discloses all of the features with respect to claim 2 as outlined above. Radlinski in view of Sakakibara in view of Krois does not clearly disclose: the processor is further configured to display each of the plurality of search words and the similarity of the multidimensional feature amount to another search word in a tabular form.
However Kimura discloses:
the processor is further configured to display each of the plurality of search words and the similarity of the multidimensional feature amount to another search word in a tabular form. (Kimura, page 6, 4th paragraph- Fig. 3 is an explanatory diagram illustrating an example of the relationship between acquired data. In the example illustrated in FIG. 3, for the data a, b, and c, the relationship between the data is expressed by a numerical matrix (corresponding to “a tabular form”). That is, when the numerical value of the i-th row and j-th column of the numerical matrix is Aij, this means the relevance between the i-th row data and the j-th column data. These numerical values may be values such as the degree of similarity, correlation coefficient, and cooccurrence between the data, or may be values processed by performing some calculation.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Radlinski in view of Sakakibara in view of Krois with the teaching of Kimura in order to help the user understand (Kimura, page 9, 11th paragraph) and also to make it easier for users to classify or organize data set and to see the relationship between the data included in the data set and the structure of the data set, (Kimura, page 3, 2nd paragraph)
Regarding claim 4, Radlinski in view of Sakakibara in view of Krois in further view of Kimura discloses all of the features with respect to claim 3 as outlined above. Radlinski in view of Sakakibara in view of Krois does not clearly disclose: wherein the processor is configured to dispose the plurality of search words in a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and display the similarity of the multidimensional feature amount between corresponding search words at an intersection point in each direction.
However Kimura discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to dispose the plurality of search words in a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and display the similarity of the multidimensional feature amount between corresponding search words at an intersection point in each direction. (Kimura, page 6, 4th paragraph -Fig. 3 is an explanatory diagram illustrating an example of the relationship between acquired data. In the example illustrated in FIG. 3, for the data a, b, and c, the relationship between the data is expressed by a numerical matrix (corresponding to” dispose the plurality of search words in a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction”). That is, when the numerical value of the i-th row and j-th column of the numerical matrix is Aij, this means the relevance between the i-th row data and the j-th column data. These numerical values may be values such as the degree of similarity, correlation coefficient, and cooccurrence between the data, or may be values processed by performing some calculation.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Radlinski in view of Sakakibara in view of Krois with the teaching of Kimura in order to help the user understand (Kimura, page 9, 11th paragraph) and also to make it easier for users to classify or organize data set and to see the relationship between the data included in the data set and the structure of the data set, (Kimura, page 3, 2nd paragraph)
Regarding claim 5, Radlinski in view of Sakakibara in view of Krois in further view of Kimura discloses all of the features with respect to claim 3 as outlined above. Radlinski in view of Sakakibara in view of Krois does not clearly disclose: wherein the processor is configured to dispose the plurality of search words in a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and display an intersection of the first and second directions in a mode depending on the similarity between corresponding search words.
However Kimura discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to dispose the plurality of search words in a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and display an intersection of the first and second directions in a mode depending on the similarity between corresponding search words. (Kimura, page 9, second paragraph- In the example illustrated in FIG. 5, the nodes are the representative data d11 to d14 of the clusters c11 to c14. Further, the thickness of the link (the thickness of the line connecting the nodes shown in FIG. 5) is proportional to the magnitude of the relationship value between the clusters. The data display means 5 may use, for example, a spectral method, a multidimensional scaling method, a spring model method, a cross entropy method, or the like as a method for appropriately displaying the graph structure.) (Note: Examiner interprets that the link between nodes is corresponding to “an intersection of the first and second directions” and “the thickness of the link” is corresponding to “a mode”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Radlinski in view of Sakakibara in view of Krois with the teaching of Kimura in order to help the user understand (Kimura, page 9, 11th paragraph) and also to make it easier for users to classify or organize data set and to see the relationship between the data included in the data set and the structure of the data set, (Kimura, page 3, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Radlinski in view of Sakakibara in view of Krois in further view of Kimura discloses all of the features with respect to claim 4 as outlined above. Radlinski does not clearly disclose: wherein the processor is configured to dispose the plurality of search words in the first direction in an order depending on the similarity of the multidimensional feature amounts to another search word.
However Sakakibara discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to dispose the plurality of search words in the first direction in an order depending on the similarity of the multidimensional feature amounts to another search word. (Sakakibara, page 6, 7th paragraph- More specifically, out of the morpheme groups contained in the upper-level display web page, the morphemes that are insufficient in the evaluation page are extracted from those having an evaluation value equal to or greater than a predetermined number, and presented in descending order of the evaluation value.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Radlinski with the teaching of Sakakibara to perform measurement and trend analysis on the correlation between the display order after a search in a search engine and various terms included in each web page to be displayed, and uses the data to display a higher-level web (Sakakibara, page 2, 1st paragraph) and also to identify and accurately satisfy for high-level display of a web page, those important related words that are considered to be highly valued by search engines, (Sakakibara, page 2, 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, Radlinski in view of Sakakibara in view of Krois in further view of Kimura discloses all of the features with respect to claim 6 as outlined above. Radlinski does not clearly disclose: wherein when one of the plurality of search words is selected by a user, the processor is configured to dispose the plurality of search words in the first direction in descending order of the similarity of the multidimensional feature amounts to the selected search word.
However Sakakibara discloses:
wherein when one of the plurality of search words is selected by a user, the processor is configured to dispose the plurality of search words in the first direction in descending order of the similarity of the multidimensional feature amounts to the selected search word. (Sakakibara, page 6, the last paragraph- By referring to this analysis result list, the user can grasp terms that are effective morphemes for high-level display in a search engine and are lacking in their own evaluation page. The screen is further shifted from the analysis result list, and only the morphemes whose evaluation value is a predetermined score or more and are insufficient on the evaluation page are extracted and listed and presented in the descending order of the evaluation value)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Radlinski with the teaching of Sakakibara to perform measurement and trend analysis on the correlation between the display order after a search in a search engine and various terms included in each web page to be displayed, and uses the data to display a higher-level web (Sakakibara, page 2, 1st paragraph) and also to identify and accurately satisfy for high-level display of a web page, those important related words that are considered to be highly valued by search engines, (Sakakibara, page 2, 4th paragraph).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Faezeh Forouharnejad whose telephone number is (571)270-7416. The examiner can normally be reached on generally Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shah Sanjiv can be reached on (571)272-4098. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)
/F.F. /
Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights