DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number KR10-2023-0075878 dated 06/14/2023. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Amendment and Arguments.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejections, see page 6-7, filed 6-18-2026, with respect to claims 1-2,7-9,11-12, and 17-19, rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that
PNG
media_image1.png
162
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, examiner disagrees this would still be a mental process of a person going through a piece of text and looking for onomatopoeias. Then based upon his findings, he looks at a list of similar onomatopoeias and chooses the shortest one. Choosing the shortest distance does not remove the abstract idea. Further these are not improvements in computer functionality but an improvement of an abstract idea. Therefore, the 101 rejections of claims 1-2,7-9,11-12, and 17-19 are maintained
Applicant further argues that
PNG
media_image2.png
161
667
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, examiners disagree, this would still be a mental process of a person writing on a piece of paper and storing it. The claims do not recite an improvement of the computer. It does not mention how memory is improved or any computer part. Improving the abstract idea does not entail the improvement of a computer. Further the claim does not explain how data is being stored in memory. Therefore, the 101 rejections of claims 1-2,7-9,11-12, and 17-19 are maintained.
Applicant further argues that
PNG
media_image3.png
560
653
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, examiner disagrees, this would still be a mental process of a person going through a piece of text and looking for onomatopoeias. Further, based upon his findings, determining the quality of the product whether it’s good or bad. An example of this would be a mechanic being told by a customer of the sounds his car makes. Based on years of experience the mechanic would be able to tell if it’s something major or something that minor. Therefore, the 101 rejections of claims 1-2,7-9,11-12, and 17-19 are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 102/103 rejection with respect to claim(s) 1-2,7-9,11-12, and 17-19 have been considered but are persuasive. Hence, the applicants’ argument for claim 1-2,7-9,11-12, and 17-19 are persuasive and rejection is removed.
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 1-2,7-9,11-12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 11, Further claim 1 recites 1. (Currently Amended) A method implemented by one or more hardware processors having access to a memory, the memory storing a first algorithm for extracting onomatopoeias, an edit distance algorithm, and reference data in which one or more similar keywords are mapped under a representative keyword, the method comprising:
pre-processing input data including text and related to a vehicle;
performing text mining on the pre-processed input data by inputting the pre-processed input data into the first algorithm to obtain one or more onomatopoeias from the pre-processed input data;
identifying, from the reference data, the one or more similar keywords associated with the one or more onomatopoeias;
labeling the one or more onomatopoeias with a corresponding representative keyword eo one or more morphemes extracted from the preprocessed input data according to the text mining;
and determining a quality of the vehicle based on the labeling of the one or more onomatopoeias or the one or more morphemes extracted obtained from the pre-processed input data according to the text mining,
wherein the corresponding representative keyword is identified by labeling one or more onomatopoeias comprises inputting the one or more onomatopoeias, together with the identified one or more similar keywords, into the edit distance algorithm to obtain, as the corresponding representative keyword, a similar keyword having a shortest edit distance applying an edit distance algorithm to identify a representative keyword from pre-stored reference data having a shortest edit distance to a sequence of characters of the one or more onomatopoeias.
Further claim 11 states a memory; and a processor that, when executing computer executable instructions stored in the memory, is configured to:
The limitation of “pre-processing…”, “preforming…”, “identifying…”, “labeling …”, “determining…”, and “identified …” , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person going through a piece of text related to a vehicle. Where he is looking for onomatopoeias and labelling them. When he is labelling them, he is categorizing them into similar onomatopoeias grouping. Further, based upon his findings determining the quality of the car whether it’s good or bad. Further going through the list of onomatopoeias that are similar and choosing the shortest distance. Finally, searching for onomatopoeias via a certain method.
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 claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are computer components “processor” (paragraph 32 &37) and “memory” (paragraphs 32&36) 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer components 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.
Claims 2 and 12 additionally recite the method of claim 1, further comprising: after the performing of the text mining, determining the quality of the vehicle based on a default error identified in the pre-processed input data according to the text mining. However, this limitation does not prevent a human from performing the steps mentally as described above. Further, the person looking through the piece of text for a default (known ) error code. Based on this know code determining whether the products quality is good or bad. Thus, these claims are directed towards a mental process. Similar to above, no additional limitations are provided that provide a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 7 and 17 additionally recites The method of claim 1[[6]], further comprising:after the labeling of the one or more onomatopoeias
Claims 8 and 18 additionally recites the method of claim 2, wherein the determining of the quality of the vehicle based on the default error comprises: determining the quality of the vehicle based on a warning light of the vehicle. However, these limitations encompass a person looking at a product and seeing if there’s already a default error by a warning light represented in the text. Thus, the claim is directed towards a mental process. Similar to above, no additional limitations are provided that provide a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9 and 19 additionally recite The method of claim 7, wherein the determining of the quality of the vehicle based on the labeling of the one or more onomatopoeias
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2,7-9,11-12, and 17-19 are not rejected over prior art and would be allowable if the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is overcome.
None of the cited references teaches the limitations as recited in claim 1. More specifically, the limitations “and reference data in which one or more similar keywords are mapped under a representative keyword …wherein the corresponding representative keyword is identified by inputting the one or more onomatopoeias, together with the identified one or more similar keywords, into the edit distance algorithm to obtain, as the corresponding representative keyword, a similar keyword having a shortest edit distance
Reference Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 6768935 B1 to Morgan discloses text mining on vehical symptoms terms further giving a vehical diagnostic.
CN 111428474 A to LIU discloses choosing a keyword having the smallest edit distance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI M HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Paras Shah can be reached at (571)270-1650. 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.
/ALI M HASSAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2653
/Paras D Shah/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
09/22/2026
Prosecution Insights