Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 4/16/2024, 7/16/2025, and 1/30/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 Therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite various limitations that, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. processor(s)), can be performed in the human mind. The claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover the concept of receiving content, identifying verbs that may be replaced by nouns, and deciding on which noun to replace the verb with. The elements of the claim can be performed by a person reading and editing a document (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite elements in the form of "a processor” or “processors." These elements are used to perform the claimed methods and steps and are recited at a high-level of generality 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not include subject matter that could not be performed by a human, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the generic computing elements to perform the claimed elements 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. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, these claims further limit the elements of claims 1 and 11 respectively by reciting the operations further comprise: prior to selecting the first subset of characters of the first verb, selecting the first verb for the phrase conversion process responsive to determining that the first verb is positioned as an initial word or final word of the first target phrase. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claims 1 and 11 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 2 and 12 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, this claim further limit the elements of claim 1 by reciting selecting a number of characters to include in the first subset of characters based on a total number of characters in the first verb and a target percentage value to be applied to the total number of characters. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, this claims further limit the elements of claim 1 by reciting the particular noun is selected based further on an industry associated with the first verb, wherein the operations further comprise: obtaining training datasets for training a machine learning model, a training dataset of the training datasets comprising: a content item comprising a set of verbs; an industry associated with the content item; training the machine learning model based on the training datasets to predict industries associated with verbs; applying the machine learning model to the first verb to predict the industry associated with the first verb. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, these claims further limit the elements of claims 1 and 11 respectively by reciting the first target phrase is converted to the first standard phrase further by reordering a set of words within the first target phrase, after replacing the first verb within the first target phrase with the particular noun, based on a standard phrase structure. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claims 1 and 11 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 5 and 16 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, these claims further limit the elements of claim 1 and 11 respectively by reciting the standard phrase structure defines a positioning of a preposition type relative to a noun type, and wherein reordering the set of words within the first target phrase comprises reordering a preposition and a noun within the set of words in accordance with the positioning of the preposition type relative to the noun type in the standard phrase structure. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claims 1 and 11 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 6 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, these claims further limit the elements of claim 1 and 11 respectively by reciting identifying a second target phrase of the content item; selecting a second subset of characters of a second verb, comprised within the second target phrase, for comparison with the plurality of nouns for the phrase conversion process; comparing the second subset of characters of the second verb with the first subset of characters of the first verb; determining that the second subset of characters is identical to the first subset of characters; and converting the second target phrase of the content item to a second standard phrase at least by replacing the second verb within the second target phrase with the particular noun. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claims 1 and 11 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 7 and 16 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, this claim further limit the elements of claim 1 by reciting prior to identifying the first target phrase of the content item: identifying a plurality of target phrases of the content item; identifying a plurality of verbs comprised respectively within the plurality of target phrases; sorting the plurality of verbs in a first alphabetical order; and sorting the plurality of nouns in a second alphabetical order; subsequent to selecting the particular noun: selecting a second subset of characters of a second verb that is subsequent to the first verb in the first alphabetical order; and comparing the second subset of characters of the second verb to a subset of the plurality of nouns, wherein the subset of the plurality of nouns comprises nouns subsequent to the particular noun in the second alphabetical order. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claim 1 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, these claims further limit the elements of claim 1 and 11 by reciting the first subset of characters, of the first verb, are compared to the plurality of nouns in a sequence that corresponds to the second alphabetical order until the first candidate subset of the one or more nouns has been identified. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claims 1 and 11 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 9 and 18 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, these claims further limit the elements of claim 1 and 11 by reciting identifying a first candidate subset of one or more nouns comprises applying a binary search algorithm to identify an initial noun of the first candidate subset of one or more nouns. Similar to claims 1 and 11 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 10 and 19 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, this claim further limit the elements of claim 11 respectively by reciting the particular noun is selected based further on an industry associated with the first verb. However, this does not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Similar to claim 11 above, no additional elements beyond the use of generic computing elements are claimed, therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor are the claim elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim13 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. Claims 1-7, 11-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over US Pat. App. Pub. No. 20210133251 (Tiwary et al., hereinafter “Tiwary”) in view of US Pat. App. Pub. No. 20040030540 (Ovil et al., hereinafter “Ovil”).
With regard to Claim 1, Tiwary describes:
“One or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising:
identifying a first target phrase of a content item; (Paragraph 60 describes that phrases are identified that may be replaced with paraphrases.)
selecting a first subset of characters of a first verb, comprised within the first target phrase, for comparison with a plurality of nouns extracted from a data corpus for a phrase conversion process; (Paragraph 60 describes that potential replacement phrases are extracted from a corpus and included in a database.)
comparing the first subset of characters, of the first verb, to the plurality of nouns; (Paragraph 70 describes that verb phrases are identified for replacement.)
identifying a first candidate subset of one or more nouns, of the plurality of nouns, that includes a sequence of characters that match the first subset of characters of the first verb; (Paragraphs 65 and 66 describe that a list of replacement phrases are selected based on similarity to the phrase to be replaced.)
selecting a particular noun, of the first candidate subset of one or more nouns, [[based on a frequency associated with the particular noun within the data corpus]]; (Paragraph 72 describes that one of the candidates is selected.) and
converting the first target phrase of the content item to a first standard phrase at least by replacing the first verb within the first target phrase with the particular noun. (Paragraph 72 describes that the selected candidate is used to replace the original phrase.)
Tiwary does not explicitly describe that the selection is based on a frequency associated with the particular noun within the data corpus.
However, paragraph 115 of Ovil describes that the usage frequency in a corpus may be used as a selection criteria for replacing words/phrases.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the frequency usage selection as described by Ovil into the method of Tiwary to improve the language enhancement, as described in paragraph 115 of Ovil.
With regard to Claim 2, Tiwary describes “prior to selecting the first subset of characters of the first verb, selecting the first verb for the phrase conversion process responsive to determining that the first verb is positioned as an initial word or final word of the first target phrase.” Paragraph 59 describes that the “phrase” being replaced may be a single word, which would make it the first and last word in the phrase.
With regard to Claim 3, Tiwary describes “selecting a number of characters to include in the first subset of characters based on a total number of characters in the first verb and a target percentage value to be applied to the total number of characters.” Paragraph 59 describes that one word can be entirely replaced. Thus, it purposefully selects 100% of the word to be replaced.
With regard to Claim 4, Tiwary describes “the particular noun is selected based further on an industry associated with the first verb, (Paragraph 54 describes that the phrases to be replaced may be based on attempts by a user to pay a bill, which is associated with a retail business.)
wherein the operations further comprise: obtaining training datasets for training a machine learning model, (Paragraph 33 describes that a model is trained to identify relevant phrases.)
a training dataset of the training datasets comprising:
a content item comprising a set of verbs; (Paragraph 24 describes that a corpus of related documents is obtained, which would include a set of verbs.)
an industry associated with the content item; (Paragraph 24 describes that the corpus of related documents may be user manuals for a product, which would be associated with a particular industry.)
training the machine learning model based on the training datasets to predict industries associated with verbs; (Paragraph 25 describe that the corpus may include product support documents, which would include verbs and be associated with a particular industry.)
applying the machine learning model to the first verb to predict the industry associated with the first verb. (Paragraph 33 describes that a model is trained to identify relevant phrases.)
With regard to Claim 5, Tiwary describes “the first target phrase is converted to the first standard phrase further by reordering a set of words within the first target phrase, after replacing the first verb within the first target phrase with the particular noun, based on a standard phrase structure.” Example 3 in Figure 8 shows that “change your payment method” can be changed to “payment method amendment,” which includes reordering the phrase after changing the verb to a noun.
With regard to Claim 6, Tiwary describes “the standard phrase structure defines a positioning of a preposition type relative to a noun type, and wherein reordering the set of words within the first target phrase comprises reordering a preposition and a noun within the set of words in accordance with the positioning of the preposition type relative to the noun type in the standard phrase structure.” Example 3 in Figure 8 shows that “change your payment method” can be changed to “payment method amendment,” which includes reordering the phrase originally including a preposition after changing the verb to a noun.
With regard to Claim 7, Tiwary describes “identifying a second target phrase of the content item; (Paragraph 60 describes that phrases are identified that may be replaced with paraphrases.)
selecting a second subset of characters of a second verb, comprised within the second target phrase, for comparison with the plurality of nouns for the phrase conversion process; (Paragraph 60 describes that potential replacement phrases are extracted from a corpus and included in a database.)
comparing the second subset of characters of the second verb with the first subset of characters of the first verb; (Paragraph 70 describes that verb phrases are identified for replacement.)
determining that the second subset of characters is identical to the first subset of characters; (Paragraphs 65 and 66 describe that a list of replacement phrases are selected based on similarity to the phrase to be replaced.) and
converting the second target phrase of the content item to a second standard phrase at least by replacing the second verb within the second target phrase with the particular noun. (Paragraph 72 describes that one of the candidates is selected.)
With respect to Claims 11-16, non-transitory computer readable media Claim 1 and method Claim 11 are related as a non-transitory storage media programmed to perform the same method, with each claimed non-transitory storage media function corresponding to each claimed method step. Accordingly, Claims 11-16 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, respectively.
With respect to Claim 20, system Claim 20 and non-transitory computer readable media Claim 1 are related as a system programmed to perform the same method as performed by the non-transitory computer readable media, with each claimed system function corresponding to each claimed non-transitory computer readable media method step. Accordingly, Claim 20 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
7. Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tiwary in view of Ovil and further in view of US Pat. No. 5,371,676 (Heemels et al., hereinafter “Heemels”).
With regard to Claims 10 and 19, Tiwary in view of Ovil does not explicitly describes this subject matter. However, column 3, line 42 to column 4, line 63 of Heemels describes searching for a word in a list of words using a binary search algorithm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the binary search algorithm as described by Heemels into the method of Tiwary in view of Ovil to improve the search performance, as described at column 3, line 42 to column 4, line 63 of Heemels.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101.
The art of record does not teach or suggest:
“identifying a plurality of target phrases of the content item;
identifying a plurality of verbs comprised respectively within the plurality of target phrases;
sorting the plurality of verbs in a first alphabetical order; and
sorting the plurality of nouns in a second alphabetical order;
subsequent to selecting the particular noun:
selecting a second subset of characters of a second verb that is subsequent to the first verb in the first alphabetical order; and
comparing the second subset of characters of the second verb to a subset of the plurality of nouns, wherein the subset of the plurality of nouns comprises nouns subsequent to the particular noun in the second alphabetical order” as recited in Claims 8 and 17.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pat App. Pub. No. 20150095320 (Motte et al.) describes a device that replaces nouns with verbs.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD TRACY whose telephone number is (571)272-8332. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 571-272-7453. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD TRACY JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2656
/ANDREW C FLANDERS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2655