DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 02/19/2026.
Claims 1-14 are pending in this application. In the Amendment, claims 1, 5, and 11-14 are amended. This action is made Final.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued Loukas does not teach creating multiple augmented versions of the token string.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., creating multiple augmented versions) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejection has been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
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 1-3, 5-7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loukas et al. (“Loukas”, US 2023/0028664) in view of Kobren et al. (“Kobren”, US 2023/0401286).
As per claim 1, Loukas teaches an information processing apparatus comprising a processor and a storage unit each including a hardware (Loukas, para.155, Fig.8, processor 801, memory 803, hardware 802), configured to:
perform augmentation on a token string included in acquired document data so as to maintain an arrangement of an original token string to generate an augmented token string (Loukas, para.26-27, 35, 46, 75, 77, 138, 150, receives tagged electronic document; preprocessing text into plurality of augmented tokens);
estimate a tag to be appended to each of the augmented token strings (Loukas, para.25-28, 35-36, 60, 69, 84, 94-95, 154, training deep learning module determines tag);
determine a tag to be appended to the token string based on the tag estimated for each of the augmented token strings (Loukas, para.25-28, 35-36, 60, 69, 84, 94-95, 154, training deep learning module determines tag);
append the determined tag to the acquired document data to generate tagged document data (Loukas, para.13, 15, 44, 77, 89-91, 135, tags added to document); and
store the tagged document data in a storage unit (Loukas, para.95, 136, tag stored with document).
However, Loukas does not teach generation of a plurality of augmented token strings.
Kobren teaches an apparatus for augmenting data which generates a plurality of augmented token strings (Kobren, para.59, 62, sentences re-ordered/shuffled to generate a plurality of diverse set of examples/versions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Kobren‘s teaching with Loukas’ apparatus in order to obtain a diverse set of strings.
As per claim 2, the apparatus of Loukas and Kobren teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate the augmented token strings by looping the token string with a shifted start position so as to obtain a predetermined number of tokens (Kobren, para.59, 62, sentences re-ordered/shuffled to generate diverse set of examples).
As per claim 3, the apparatus of Loukas and Kobren teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate the augmented token strings by looping a token string with a shifted start position a predetermined number of times (Kobren, para.59, 62, sentences re-ordered/shuffled to generate diverse set of examples).
As per claim 5, Loukas teaches an information processing apparatus comprising a processor and a storage unit each including a hardware (Loukas, para.155, Fig.8, processor 801, memory 803, hardware 802), configured to:
acquire, from the storage unit, a tagged document data (Loukas, para.95, 136, tag stored with document; para.13, 15, 44, 77, 89-91, 135, tags added to document);
perform augmentation on a token string included in acquired tagged document data so as to maintain an arrangement of an original token string to generate an augmented token string (Loukas, para.26-27, 35, 46, 75, 77, 138, 150, receives tagged electronic document; preprocessing text into plurality of augmented tokens);
perform augmentation on a tag appended to the token string (Loukas, para.35, 84, 140, 150, 154, learning by comparing predicted tag with training data); and
perform training of a tag estimation model for estimating a tag appended to each of the augmented token strings by using the augmented token strings to which an augmented tag is appended (Loukas, para.25-28, 35-36, 60, 69, 84, 94-95, 154, training deep learning module estimates tag).
However, Loukas does not teach generation of a plurality of augmented token strings.
Kobren teaches an apparatus for augmenting data which generates a plurality of augmented token strings (Kobren, para.59, 62, sentences re-ordered/shuffled to generate a plurality of diverse set of examples/versions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Kobren‘s teaching with Loukas’ apparatus in order to obtain a diverse set of strings.
Claims 6-7 are similar in scope to claims 2-3 respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 11 and 13 are similar in scope to claim 1, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 12 and 14 are similar in scope to claim 5, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loukas et al. (“Loukas”, US 2023/0028664) and Kobren et al. (“Kobren”, US 2023/0401286) in view of Dimitriadis et al. (“Dimitriadis”, US 2023/0297777).
As per claim 4, the apparatus of Loukas and Kobren teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, however does not teach wherein the processor is configured to generate the augmented token strings by adding a predetermined number of random tokens to a head and/or a tail of the token string. Dimitriadis teaches an apparatus for augmenting text which generates the augmented token strings by adding a predetermined number of random tokens to a head and/or a tail of the token string (Dimitriadis, para.33, appended predetermined user-specific tokens). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Dimitriadis’ teaching with the apparatus of Loukas and Kobren in order to generate distinct tokens.
Claim 8 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loukas et al. (“Loukas”, US 2023/0028664) and Kobren et al. (“Kobren”, US 2023/0401286) in view of HE et al. (“HE”, US 2023/0142217).
As per claim 9, the apparatus of Loukas and Kobren teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the tag estimation model is a model that estimates a tag using a deep learning model (Loukas, para.67, 84) however does not explicitly teach using a sequence labeling method. HE teaches a deep learning apparatus that uses a sequence labeling model to label documents (HE, para.60, 73, labeling for word). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include HE’s teaching with the apparatus of Loukas and Kobren for tagging through an alternative machine learning model.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loukas et al. (“Loukas”, US 2023/0028664) and Kobren et al. (“Kobren”, US 2023/0401286) in view of Sandhu et al. (“Sandhu”, US 2014/0324808).
As per claim 10, the apparatus of Loukas and Kobren teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the tag estimation model is a model that estimates a tag using a deep learning model (Loukas, para.67, 84) however does not explicitly teach using a semantic segmentation method. Sandhu teaches a tagging apparatus that uses a semantic segmentation to label documents (Sandhu, para.2, 85, tags based on semantic segmentation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Sandhu’s teaching with the apparatus of Loukas and Kobren for tagging through an alternative machine learning model.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAJEDA MUHEBBULLAH whose telephone number is (571)272-4065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tue/Thur-Fri 10am-8pm.
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, William L Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/S.M./
Sajeda MuhebbullahExaminer, Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights