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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on 6/17/2026 has been entered and made of record. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending.
Previous 35 USC 102 rejections to claims 1, 5-6, 11-13, and 17 have been withdrawn as necessitated by amendments. New rejections under 35 USC 103 to claims 1, 3-9, and 11-20 have been made under L1 in view of Su, and to claim 10 under L1 in view of Su and Peleg et al as necessitated by amendments.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings filed 8/18/2023 were accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"a communication module configured to perform" in claim 1;
“an analytics module configured to perform” in claim 1; and
“a training module configured to perform” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of generating a phrase (generating a phrase based on the first selected word tile and the second selected word tile), accessing and adding a word tile (accessing the first selected word tile from the first set of word tiles, adding the first selected word tile to a set of selections of a plurality of selections), determining a second set of word tiles (determining the second set of word tiles), and identifying a word tree.
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitations that describe the generating a phrase, accessing and adding a word tile, determining a second set of word tiles and identifying a word tree are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims also include elements of modules that perform operations, receiving selections (receiving user selected word tiles), and presenting word tiles (presenting a first set of word tiles for selection… presenting a second set of word tiles based on the first selected word tile from the first set of word tiles), however nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements regarding performing operations, receiving user selections, and presenting word tiles are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are not considered improvements to the functioning of a technology or technical field. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extrasolutionary elements are not considered significantly more than just applying the steps of receiving selections, generating a phrase, accessing and adding a word tile, and determining a second set of word tiles.
Step 2B
In addition to the abstract idea, the claims have the performing operations, receiving user selections, and presenting word tiles, but they represent only well-understood, routine, conventional activity that can be performed on generic computers. The performing of operations by the modules are considered as merely applying the abstract ideas. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Ly Tan et al (hereinafter L1; US20210390881A1; filed 10/21/2019; published 12/16/2021) discloses how well-understood, routine, and conventional the presenting and selection of tiles is: abstract: “a user interface to display word tiles for selection.” The claims are not patent eligible.
As per claim 3, this claim has similar presenting steps and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 4, this claim recites an additional abstract idea of identifying a word tree. The identification is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There are no other additional elements.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 5, this claim recites an additional abstract idea of generating a sentence. The generating a sentence is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. This claim also recites an additional element of providing an input to a trained model.
(Step 2A, prong 2) The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements regarding providing an input to a trained model are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are not considered improvements to the functioning of a technology or technical field.
(Step 2B) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the providing an input to a trained model is not considered significantly more than the judicial exception. The sending and receiving of data has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 6, this claim recites an additional abstract idea of generating communication data. The generating of data is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There are no other additional elements.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 7, this claim recites additional abstract ideas of predicting a likelihood and prioritizing tiles. The predicting and prioritizing are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. There are no other additional elements.
As per claim 8, this claim has similar predicting steps and is rejected similarly to claim 7.
As per claim 9, this claim has similar predicting steps and is rejected similarly to claim 7.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 10, this claim recites an additional abstract idea of generating a likelihood. The generating a likelihood is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. This claim also recites an additional element of providing an input to a trained NLP model.
(Step 2A, prong 2) The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements regarding providing an input to a trained model are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are not considered improvements to the functioning of a technology or technical field.
(Step 2B) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the providing an input to a trained model is not considered significantly more than the judicial exception. The sending and receiving of data has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 11, this claim recites additional abstract ideas of collecting data and increasing a delay time. The collecting and increasing are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. There are no other additional elements.
As per claim 12, this claim has similar collecting interaction data steps and is rejected similarly to claim 11.
Claims 13-15 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1-3 respectively and are thus rejected along the same rationales.
Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 7 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 17-19 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1-3 respectively and are thus rejected along the same rationales.
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 7 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly Tan et al (hereinafter L1; US20210390881A1; filed 10/21/2019; published 12/16/2021) in view of Su et al (US20180081964A1; filed 9/22/2016).
With regards to claim 1, L1 discloses A device for assistive communication (L1, abstract: “A communication device includes a communication module to generate a user interface to display word tiles for selection, compile a sentence upon selection of word tiles, and output the sentence”), comprising:
a communication module configured to perform operations comprising a user selection of a first set of word tiles, receiving a first user selected word tile from the first set of word tiles (L1, paragraph 33: “Selection of a word tile may provide for the selection of additional selection of word tiles so that the user may select several words to be compiled into a sentence for output. For example, selection of a first word tile 302 may generate a group 304 of additional word tiles, and selection of a word tile from the group 304;” the group of additional word tiles are interpreted as the claimed “first set of word tiles”), presenting a second set of word tiles based on the first selected word tile from the first set of word tiles, receiving a second user selected word tile from the second set of word tiles (L1, paragraph 36: “the selection of a particular word tile may cause the dynamic generation of a following group of word tiles, wherein the following group is generated according to a predictive algorithm”), and generating a phrase based on the first selected word tile and the second selected word tile (L1, paragraph 37: “As word tiles are selected, the selected word tiles may be stored in a sentence container 310. As word tiles are included in the sentence container 310, additional sentence structure elements, such as articles, prepositions, or other words and/or punctuation, may be generated and inserted as appropriate into the sentence container 310”); and
an analytics module configured to perform operations comprising accessing the first selected word tile from the first set of word tiles, adding the first selected word tile to a set of selections of a plurality of selections, and determining the second set of word tiles based on the plurality of selections (L1, paragraph 36: “the selection of a particular word tile may cause the dynamic generation of a following group of word tiles, wherein the following group is generated according to a predictive algorithm;” paragraph 33: “selection of a first word tile 302 may generate a group 304 of additional word tiles, and selection of a word tile from the group 304 may generate an additional group 306 of still additional word tiles, the selection of which may generate an additional group 308 of still additional word tiles, and so on”)...
However, L1 does not disclose wherein the communication module is configured to perform operations further comprising, before presenting the first set of word tiles for selection, identifying a word tree for each word tile of the first set of word tiles, wherein each word tree has the corresponding word tile in its first level.
Su et al teaches wherein the communication module is configured to perform operations further comprising, before presenting the first set of word tiles for selection, identifying a word tree for each word tile of the first set of word tiles, wherein each word tree has the corresponding word tile in its first level (Su et al, paragraph 35: “Prefix tree generating unit 508 is configured to generate a prefix tree for each string including the predicted next word. Each letter or symbol of the string is inserted into the prefix tree. The final node of the prefix tree is associated with an inverted index list, containing the suggestion database IDs of the corresponding suggestions;” paragraph 38: “Three prefixes are shown in prefix tree 601 including yahoo s, yahoo se, and app s;” as described in paragraph 38 and shown in fig. 6B, different word tree/suggestions are selected based on the selected word (“yahoo” or “app” in their example); these word trees are indexed prior to any selections made in the current instance).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined L1 and Su et al to use word trees for each word to predict the subsequent word selections. This would have enabled the invention to store and retrieve suggestions based on the current selections of a user (Su et al, paragraph 35: “Storing unit 506 receives the index information, association information, and the prefix trees associated with the suggestions to be stored in suggestion database 108”).
With regards to claim 3, which depends on claim 2, L1 discloses presenting a set of word tiles at a second level… corresponding to the first selected word tile from the first set of word tiles (L1, paragraph 36: “the selection of a particular word tile may cause the dynamic generation of a following group of word tiles, wherein the following group is generated according to a predictive algorithm”).
However, L1 does not disclose a second level of the word tree corresponding to the first selected word.
Su et al teaches a second level of the word tree corresponding to the first selected word (Su et al, paragraph 35: “Prefix tree generating unit 508 is configured to generate a prefix tree for each string including the predicted next word. Each letter or symbol of the string is inserted into the prefix tree. The final node of the prefix tree is associated with an inverted index list, containing the suggestion database IDs of the corresponding suggestions”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined L1 and Su et al to use word trees for each word to predict the subsequent word selections. This would have enabled the invention to store and retrieve suggestions based on the current selections of a user (Su et al, paragraph 35: “Storing unit 506 receives the index information, association information, and the prefix trees associated with the suggestions to be stored in suggestion database 108”).
With regards to claim 4, which depends on claim 2, L1 discloses wherein determining the second set of word tiles for selection comprises… word tiles (L1, paragraph 33: “Selection of a word tile may provide for the selection of additional selection of word tiles so that the user may select several words to be compiled into a sentence for output. For example, selection of a first word tile 302 may generate a group 304 of additional word tiles, and selection of a word tile from the group 304”).
However, L1 does not disclose identifying a word tree having the first selected word… from the first set of word… in its first level and the second selected word… from the second set of word… in its second level.
Su et al teaches identifying a word tree having the first selected word… from the first set of word… in its first level and the second selected word… from the second set of word… in its second level (Su et al, paragraph 35: “Prefix tree generating unit 508 is configured to generate a prefix tree for each string including the predicted next word.” Fig. 6B: The tree shows both the first word (yahoo or app) followed by the indexed suggestions 114).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined L1 and Su et al to use word trees for each word to predict the subsequent word selections. This would have enabled the invention to store and retrieve suggestions based on the current selections of a user (Su et al, paragraph 35: “Storing unit 506 receives the index information, association information, and the prefix trees associated with the suggestions to be stored in suggestion database 108”).
With regards to claim 5, which depends on claim 1, L1 discloses wherein generating the phrase comprises providing the first selected word tile and second selected word tile as input to (L1, paragraph 4: “The communication device further includes a training module to collect interaction data, the interaction data including indications of interactions of a user account with the communication module over a plurality of trials”) a machine learning model that is trained to generate a complete sentence based at least in part on sentence fragments (L1, paragraph 36: “the dynamic generation of a following group of word tiles, wherein the following group is generated according to a predictive algorithm. The predictive algorithm may involve presenting the individual with word tiles… A predictive algorithm may include a machine learning algorithm”).
With regards to claim 6, which depends on claim 1, L1 discloses wherein the communication module further comprises generating a communication data for output based on the phrase (L1, paragraph 4: “compile a sentence upon selection of word tiles, and output the sentence”).
With regards to claim 7, which depends on claim 1, L1 discloses wherein determining the second set of word tiles comprises predicting a likelihood of selection for one or more word tiles of the second set of word tiles based on the plurality of selections (L1, paragraph 36: “the selection of a particular word tile may cause the dynamic generation of a following group of word tiles, wherein the following group is generated according to a predictive algorithm”).
However, L1 does not disclose and prioritizing the one or more word tiles of the second set of word tiles based on the likelihood of selection such that a word tile with the highest likelihood of selection has the highest priority.
Su et al teaches prioritizing the one or more word tiles of the second set of word tiles based on the likelihood of selection such that a word tile with the highest likelihood of selection has the highest priority (Su et al, paragraph 23: “Therefore, for a given context C (i.e., parts of a written statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage) and a next word candidate Wi, the conditional probability P(Wi|C) is also fixed. As all potential candidate probabilities are fixed, the highest ranked candidates can be determined and saved as potential suggestions;” paragraph 32: “Ranking module 310 further ranks the candidates based on the estimated probabilities”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined L1 and Su et al such that the next word tiles are ranked based on the likelihood of the user selecting them. This would have enabled the invention to prune the suggested words based on the likelihood that they are selected (Su et al, paragraph 32: “Filtering module 312 is configured to prune the ranked candidates and select the candidates with the K highest probabilities”).
With regards to claim 8, which depends on claim 7, L1 does not disclose wherein predicting the likelihood of selection is further based on a frequency of one or more word tiles of the second set of word tiles in the plurality of selections.
However, Su et al teaches wherein predicting the likelihood of selection is further based on a frequency of one or more word tiles of the second set of word tiles in the plurality of selections (Su et al, paragraph 32: “Ranking module 310 may apply one or more ranking criteria 316 to estimate the probabilities, such as, the frequency that the candidate is recommended with the same previous word, etc”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined L1 and Su et al such that the next word tiles are ranked based on the likelihood of the user selecting them. This would have enabled the invention to prune the suggested words based on the likelihood that they are selected (Su et al, paragraph 32: “Filtering module 312 is configured to prune the ranked candidates and select the candidates with the K highest probabilities”).
With regards to claim 9, which depends on claim 7, L1 does not disclose wherein predicting the likelihood of selection is further based on a current location.
However, Su et al teaches wherein predicting the likelihood of selection is further based on a current location (Su et al, Paragraph 27: "The ranking criteria may be… the frequency that a suggestion is recommended within a geographic area, etc.").
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined L1 and Su et al such that the next word tiles are ranked based on the likelihood of the user selecting them. This would have enabled the invention to prune the suggested words based on the likelihood that they are selected (Su et al, paragraph 32: “Filtering module 312 is configured to prune the ranked candidates and select the candidates with the K highest probabilities”).
With regards to claim 11, which depends on claim 1, L1 discloses a training module configured to perform operations comprising collecting interaction data (L1, paragraph 55: “The progress chart 610 may be generated by interaction data collected as discussed herein, and may be consulted to review the progress of the individual”) and progressively increasing a delay time between receiving a selected word and generating a phrase for output based on the interaction data (L1, paragraph 51: “the audibility of the vocalization of the word may be decreased by, for example, … by delaying output of the sound to provide the user with an opportunity to vocalize the sound themselves… such diminishment may be updated as the user progresses”).
With regards to claim 12, which depends on claim 11, L1 discloses wherein the interaction data comprises interactions by a user with the device over a plurality of instances (L1, paragraph 55: “The progress chart 610 may be generated by interaction data collected as discussed herein, and may be consulted to review the progress of the individual;” fig. 6B: the chart shows interactions over a plurality of days).
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 14-15 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 2-3 respectively and are thus rejected along the same rationales.
Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 7 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 18-19 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 2-3 respectively and are thus rejected along the same rationales.
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 7 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly Tan et al (L1) in view of Su et al, and further in view of Peleg et al (US20220215164A1; filed 3/24/2022).
With regards to claim 10, which depends on claim 7, L1 discloses wherein predicting the likelihood of selection comprises providing the first selected word tile from the first set of word tiles and one or more word tiles from the second set of word tiles as input to a… model that is trained to generate a… of a word tile from the second set of word tiles following the first selected word tile (L1, paragraph 36: “the selection of a particular word tile may cause the dynamic generation of a following group of word tiles, wherein the following group is generated according to a predictive algorithm”).
However, L1 does not disclose generate a likelihood of a word… from the second set of word… a natural language processing model that is trained… based at least in part on an annotated corpus
Su et al teaches generate a likelihood of a word… from the second set of word (Su et al, paragraph 32: “Ranking module 310 further ranks the candidates based on the estimated probabilities”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined L1 and Su et al such that the next word tiles are ranked based on the likelihood of the user selecting them. This would have enabled the invention to prune the suggested words based on the likelihood that they are selected (Su et al, paragraph 32: “Filtering module 312 is configured to prune the ranked candidates and select the candidates with the K highest probabilities”).
Peleg et al teaches a natural language processing model (Peleg et al, abstract: “generating at least one text output option… causing the at least one text output option to be shown to the user via the display;” paragraph 5: “The disclosed embodiments also include semantically infused language models. Such models may include a neural network-based language model explicitly trained to contain contextual relations between abstract semantic features in text”) that is trained… based at least in part on an annotated corpus (Peleg et al, paragraph 162: “In the supervised step, a dataset of annotated examples may be leveraged to train a model (“Semantic Reader”) on a few Natural Language Understanding tasks which capture semantics (such as Semantic Role Labeling, Semantic Proto-Roles, Coreference, Entity Linking, etc)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined L1, Su et al, and Peleg et al such that the word tiles are generated using a natural language processing model trained on annotated data. This would have enabled the invention to maintain contextual relations between abstract semantic features in text (Peleg et al, paragraph 5: “The disclosed embodiments also include semantically infused language models. Such models may include a neural network-based language model explicitly trained to contain contextual relations between abstract semantic features in text, in contrast with prior art, where models can only be trained to learn contextual relations between surface-level words. For example, the disclosed systems may enable a model to learn contextual relations between words and word senses and between words and the properties of the abstract concepts invoked by the text.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026, with regards to the previous 35 USC 101 rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments to claim 1 overcomes the rejections because the claims do not recite a mental process. Instead applicant argues that the active selection of word tiles by the user causes the generation of the phrase, and this cannot be performed in the human mind. Examiner has updated the rejection above such that the reception of the user selected word is considered an additional element instead of an abstract idea, but maintains that claim 1 still includes mental processes, such as the generating of a phrase, determining word tiles, and identifying a word tree. Even with the user selection of the word tiles, these are still processes that can reasonably be performed by a human mind. Applicant further argues that the claims are subject-matter eligible because they recite a specific manner of automatically arranging items relative to another object on the interface to improve usability. However, applicant has not described how the usability is improved by the automatic arrangement of items. Examiner suggests arguing more specifically how the usability is improved, and which limitations specifically cause the improvements. Without additional details the argument is not persuasive. Applicant also argues that the combination of elements in the independent claims provide significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. However, this is merely asserted by the applicant with no further details, and thus examiner maintains the current rejection. The arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026, with regards to the previous 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections to the independent claims (and therefore also the claims dependent on them), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the previous limitations of claim 2, which have been appended to claim 1, are not taught by the combination of L1 and Su because “paragraph [0038] of Su is not equivalent to the subject matter of former claim 2. Further, there is no motivation or reasonable expectation of success to combine the references.” Examiner disagrees, and argues that Su’s teaching of “prefix trees” as described in paragraphs 35 and 38 are sufficient to teach the amended limitations (also see the updated rejection to claim 1 above), and that the motivation provided by Su in paragraph 35 is sufficient to provide the motivation to combine L1 and Su. Thus the arguments are not persuasive.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRODERICK C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday, Thursday-Saturday 9-5 PST.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at 5712724124. 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.
/B.C.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2178
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights