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 .
Acknowledgement
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s amendment made on 04/27/2026. Applicant’s submission filed has been entered and made of record.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-16, and 18-21 are pending.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
In response to “Amended Claim 1 introduces a time duration threshold to dynamically filter entity words in dialogue text, thereby improving the human-computer interaction efficiency of the instant messaging (IM) application. This constitutes an improvement to computer functionality”.
As an initial matter, according to the specification US 2024/0311564 A1 at ¶124: “It should be noted that the computer-readable medium according to the embodiment of the disclosure may be a computer-readable signal medium…” and “…the computer-readable signal medium may include a data signal in a baseband or as part of a carrier for transmission, and the data signal carries a computer-readable program code”. Therefore, Claim 16 is non-statutory because the scope of “a computer-readable medium” includes “computer-readable signal medium” that is signal per se.
Further, Alice inquiry asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database) or instead, on a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Enfish L.L.C. v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Exemplary claim 1 discloses a text processing method, comprising:
obtaining first text, and determining a first entity word in the first text, thereby generating a first entity word set;
determining a word explanation corresponding to the first entity word in the first entity word set based on the first text, and obtaining related information corresponding to the word explanation; and
pushing first information to present the first text, and displaying the first entity word in the first entity word set in a first display mode in the first text, wherein the first information comprises the first entity word set, the word explanation corresponding to the first entity word in the first entity word set, and the related information;
wherein the determining the first entity word in the first text comprises:
determining at least one candidate entity word in the first text; and
obtaining second text, and selecting the first entity word from the at least one candidate entity word based on the second text, wherein the second text is text adjacent to the first text and before the first text;
wherein the first text is dialogue text; and
the selecting the first entity word from the at least one candidate entity word based on the second text comprises:
obtaining text generation time of the second text;
determining whether duration between the current time and the text generation time is shorter than a first duration threshold; and
if so, determining, for a candidate entity word in the at least one candidate entity word, the candidate entity word to be the first entity word in response to determining that the candidate entity word does not exist in the second text.
Here, “determining whether duration between the current time and the text generation time is shorter than a first duration threshold” is a determination, a judgment, or evaluation, which is non-statutory because determination is a mental process.
Further, this determination step is embedded within yet another determination process corresponding to “the determining the first entity word in the first text”.
Finally, the claim recited no limitation on how these determinations are applied to improve a specifically asserted technology; i.e., the claim contained no limitation that focuses on how to improve “the human-computer interaction efficiency of the instant messaging (IM) application”.
To expedite prosecution, examiner proposes the following amendments:
1. (currently amended) A text processing method, comprising:
obtaining first text, and determining a first entity word in the first text, thereby generating a first entity word set;
determining a word explanation corresponding to the first entity word in the first entity word set based on the first text, and obtaining related information corresponding to the word explanation; and
displaying first information in a first display mode comprises:
displaying the first entity word in the first entity word set in a first area of the first display mode,
displaying the word explanation corresponding to the first entity word in the first entity word set in a second area of the first display mode, and
displaying the related information in a third area of the first display mode;
wherein the determining the first entity word in the first text comprises:
determining at least one candidate entity word in the first text; and
obtaining second text, and selecting the first entity word from the at least one candidate entity word based on the second text, wherein the second text is text adjacent to the first text and before the first text;
wherein the first text is dialogue text; and
the selecting the first entity word from the at least one candidate entity word based on the second text comprises:
obtaining text generation time of the second text;
determining whether duration between the current time and the text generation time is shorter than a first duration threshold; and
if so, determining, for a candidate entity word in the at least one candidate entity word, the candidate entity word to be the first entity word in response to determining that the candidate entity word does not exist in the second text.
15. (Currently Amended) An electronic device, comprising:
one or more processors; and
a storage apparatus storing one or more programs, wherein
the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
obtain first text, and determine a first entity word in the first text, thereby generating a first entity word set;
determine a word explanation corresponding to the first entity word in the first entity word set based on the first text, and obtain related information corresponding to the word explanation; and
display first information in a first display mode comprises:
display the first entity word in the first entity word set in a first area of the first display mode,
display the word explanation corresponding to the first entity word in the first entity word set in a second area of the first display mode, and
display the related information in a third area of the first display mode;
wherein the computer program, when causing the processor to determine the first entity word in the first text, causes the processor to:
determine at least one candidate entity word in the first text; and
obtain second text, and select the first entity word from the at least one candidate entity word based on the second text, wherein the second text is text adjacent to the first text and before the first text; wherein the first text is dialogue text; and wherein the computer program, when causing the processor to select the first entity word from the at least one candidate entity word based on the second text, causes the processor to:
obtain text generation time of the second text;
determine whether duration between the current time and the text generation time is shorter than a first duration threshold; and
if so, determine, for a candidate entity word in the at least one candidate entity word, the candidate entity word to be the first entity word in response to determining that the candidate entity word does not exist in the second text.
16. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to:
obtain first text, and determine a first entity word in the first text, thereby generating a first entity word set;
determine a word explanation corresponding to the first entity word in the first entity word set based on the first text, and obtain related information corresponding to the word explanation; and
display first information in a first display mode comprises:
display the first entity word in the first entity word set in a first area of the first display mode,
display the word explanation corresponding to the first entity word in the first entity word set in a second area of the first display mode, and
display the related information in a third area of the first display mode;
wherein the computer program, when causing the processor to determine the first entity word in the first text, causes the processor to:
determine at least one candidate entity word in the first text; and
obtain second text, and select the first entity word from the at least one candidate entity word based on the second text, wherein the second text is text adjacent to the first text and before the first text;
wherein the first text is dialogue text; and wherein the computer program, when causing the processor to select the first entity word from the at least one candidate entity word based on the second text, causes the processor to:
obtain text generation time of the second text;
determine whether duration between the current time and the text generation time is shorter than a first duration threshold; and
if so, determine, for a candidate entity word in the at least one candidate entity word, the candidate entity word to be the first entity word in response to determining that the candidate entity word does not exist in the second text.
The amendments to claims 1, 15, and 16 are based on the specification at Fig. 4:
PNG
media_image1.png
482
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In particular, in Core Wireless, asserted claims were directed to an improved user interface for computing devices: a computing device comprising a display screen, the computing device being configured to display on the screen a main menu listing at least a first application, and additionally being configured to display on the screen an application summary window that can be reached directly from the main menu, wherein the application summary window displays a limited list of at least one function offered within the first application, each function in the list being selectable to launch the first application and initiate the selected function, and wherein the application summary window is displayed while the application is in an unlaunched state. Core Wireless Licensing SARL v. LG Electronics, 880 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
According to the CAFC, (1) the requirement "an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu" specified a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed such that the claims were directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices. Id. at 1362. Further (2), the claims required the application summary window list a limited set of data that restrained the type of data that can be displayed in the summary window. Id. at 1363. Finally (3), the claims required a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user rather than a conventional user interface displaying a generic index on a computer such that the claims recited an improved user interface for electronic devices. Id.
Similarly, proposed amended claims specifically asserted improvement to a display mode that (1) specified a particular manner in which the display model presents information on entity words difficult for users’ understanding by:
display the first entity word in the first entity word set in a first area of the first display mode,
display the word explanation corresponding to the first entity word in the first entity word set in a second area of the first display mode, and
display the related information in a third area of the first display mode.
Further (2), the specifically asserted display mode listed a set of data that restrained the type of data that can be displayed or presented to the users: display the word explanation corresponding to the first entity word in the first entity word set in a second area of the first display mod and display the related information in a third area of the first display mode.
Finally (3), the specifically asserted display mode required a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user (first entity word, the word explanation corresponding to the first entity word, and related information corresponding to the word explanation) rather than a conventional user interface displaying a generic entity word on a computer such that the claims recited an improved user interface / display mode for electronic devices.
In response to “Applicant is grateful for the Examiner's indication that Claim 7 is allowable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. In response, the additional features of Claims 2 and 7 have been incorporated into independent Claim 1. Applicant respectfully submits that the amended Claim 1 is patentable over the cited references”.
If applicant adopts examiner’s proposed amendment to claims 1, 15, and 16, or in the alternative, focus the claims on a specific manner of applying the determination process to improve a specifically asserted technology, then the claims would be allowable.
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, 3-6, 8-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directing toward non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 16, claim 16 recites a computer readable medium.
According to the specification US 2024/0311564 A1 at ¶124: “It should be noted that the computer-readable medium according to the embodiment of the disclosure may be a computer-readable signal medium…the computer-readable signal medium may include a data signal in a baseband or as part of a carrier for transmission, and the data signal carries a computer-readable program code”.
Here, the scope of “computer readable medium” includes “computer readable signal medium” or transitory signal.
While signal (e.g., electricity, magnetism, light, electromagnetism, infrared ray) is man-made and physical – it exists in the real word and has tangible causes and effects – it is a change in electric potential and energy embodying such claimed computer readable storage medium medium is fleeting and devoid of any semblance of permanence during transmission. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, a computer readable media whose scope includes a transient recording medium is devoid of matter and are not statutory within the meaning of §101. Id. at 1357.
Further, claim 1 recites a method (“process”). Claim 15 recites an electronic device comprising a processor and storage apparatus (“machine”). claim 16 recites a computer readable medium (manufacture).
To distinguish ineligible claims that merely recite a judicial exception from eligible claims that require an implementation of judicial exception, the Supreme Court uses a two-step framework: Step One (Step 2A), determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts; and Step Two (Step 2B), if so, ask “what else is there in the claims?” to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible application. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014).
Step One (Step 2A) is a two prong test that requires the determination of whether the claims at issue are directed to an enumerated patent ineligible concept. See MPEP 2106.04.
Specifically, Step 2A Prong (1) requires the determination of the specific limitations in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea and determining whether the identified limitations falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
The enumerated patent ineligible concepts comprising:
(a) Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles / practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules / instructions) and
(c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a).
If the claim recites an enumerated patent ineligible concept, then Prong (2) of Step One (Step 2A) requires the determination of whether the claim integrates the patent ineligible concept into a practical application. Individually and in combination, identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Under Step Two (Step 2B), if the claim does not integrate the ineligible concept into a practical application and therefore directed to a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim provides an inventive concept by determining whether there are additional elements, individually and in ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See MPEP 2106.04.
Step 2A Prong (1)
The “directed to” inquiry does not ask whether the claims involve a patent ineligible concept but, considered in light of the specification, whether the claim as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter or directed to an improvement to computer functionality. Enfish L.L.C. v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore, Prong (1) of Step 2A requires identifying specific limitations in the claims that recites (“describes” or “set forth”) an abstract idea and determine whether the identified limitations falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated. See MPEP 2106.04 (“Thus, it is sufficient for this analysis for the examiner to identify that the claimed concept (the specific claim limitation(s) that the examiner believes may recite an exception) aligns with at least one judicial exception”).
In particular, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states “a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation”.
Under Prong (1), claim 10 recites an electronic device, comprising:
one or more processors; and
a storage apparatus storing one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
(1)(a) obtaining first text, and (2)(a) determining a first entity word in the first text, thereby generating a first entity word set;
(2)(b) determining a word explanation corresponding to the first entity word in the first entity word set based on the first text, and (1)(b) obtaining related information corresponding to the word explanation; and
(3) pushing first information to present the first text, and displaying the first entity word in the first entity word set in a first display mode in the first text, wherein the first information comprises the first entity word set, the word explanation corresponding to the first entity word in the first entity word set, and the related information;
wherein the determining the first entity word in the first text comprises:
determining at least one candidate entity word in the first text; and
obtaining second text, and selecting the first entity word from the at least one candidate entity word based on the second text, wherein the second text is text adjacent to the first text and before the first text;
wherein the first text is dialogue text; and
the selecting the first entity word from the at least one candidate entity word based on the second text comprises:
obtaining text generation time of the second text;
determining whether duration between the current time and the text generation time is shorter than a first duration threshold; and
if so, determining, for a candidate entity word in the at least one candidate entity word, the candidate entity word to be the first entity word in response to determining that the candidate entity word does not exist in the second text.
Claim 1 recites a corresponding method.
Claim 16 recites a computer-readable medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to execute the method of claim 1 and functions of claim 15.
Individually, steps (1)(a)-(1)(b) for obtaining text to be processed and obtain related information corresponding to the word explanation correspond to collecting information. Collecting information, including when limited to particular content, is within the realm of abstract ideas. Electric Power Grp., L.L.C. v. Alstom SA, 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Individually, steps (2)(a)-(2)(b) for determining a target entity word in the text to be processed and a word explanation correspond to making evaluation or judgment. In view of the specification US 2024/0311564 A1 at ¶41: “In the embodiment, the execution subject may determine the word explanation corresponding to the target entity word in the target entity word set based on the text to be processed. The word explanation may also be referred to as a word paraphrase”.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, step (2) can be accomplished by a person performing mental step to make a paraphrase / explanation of the target entity word. Analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, are treated as essentially mental process within the abstract-idea category. Electric Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354. Therefore, step (2) is essentially a mental process.
Individually, step (3) corresponds to presenting the text to be processed and displaying target entity word in a preset display mode. In view of the specification US 2024/0311564 A1 at ¶107: “The pushing unit 803 is configured to push target information to present the text to be processed, and display the target entity word in the target entity word set in a preset display mode in the text to be processed, where the target information includes the target entity word set, the word explanation corresponding to the target entity word in the target entity word set”.
Merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. Electric Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354.
In ordered combination, steps (1)-(3) correspond to collecting information limited to particular content (text to be processed and word explanation related information), analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds (determine word explanation of target entity word), and presenting / displaying the results of such collection and analysis.
Thus, claims 1, 15, and 16 described patent ineligible subject matter enumerated under category (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment (making intent predictions), opinion).
Step 2A Prong (2).
Under Prong (2) of Step 2A, the goal is to determine whether the claim is directed to the recited exception by evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.04II(A).
In particular, evaluating integration into a practical application requires identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluating those additional elements, individually and in combination, to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
See also MPEP 2106.04(d)I (“an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)”).
According to the Supreme Court, a patent may issue for the means or method of producing a certain result, or effect, and not for the result or effect produced. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 182 n. 7 (1981).
Further, the Supreme Court and the CAFC distinguished between (1) computer-functionality improvements from the (2) uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on abstract ideas. Electric Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354 (“…we relied on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvement and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas”…”).
For example, in Core Wireless, asserted claims were directed to an improved user interface for computing devices: a computing device comprising a display screen, the computing device being configured to display on the screen a main menu listing at least a first application, and additionally being configured to display on the screen an application summary window that can be reached directly from the main menu, wherein the application summary window displays a limited list of at least one function offered within the first application, each function in the list being selectable to launch the first application and initiate the selected function, and wherein the application summary window is displayed while the application is in an unlaunched state. Core Wireless Licensing SARL v. LG Electronics, 880 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
According to the CAFC, (1) the requirement "an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu" specified a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed such that the claims were directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices. Id. at 1362. Further (2), the claims required the application summary window list a limited set of data that restrained the type of data that can be displayed in the summary window. Id. at 1363. Finally (3), the claims required a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user rather than a conventional user interface displaying a generic index on a computer such that the claims recited an improved user interface for electronic devices. Id.
On the other hand, with respect to a claim for detecting and automatically analyzing events on an interconnected electric power grid in real time over a wide area, the CAFC held that such claim clearly focused on a combination of abstract ideas comprising collecting information limited to particular content and analyzing information by mental steps or by mathematical algorithms. Electric Power Grp., 830 F.3d 1350 at 1354.
Specifically, the claims specified what information in the power-grid field it is desirable to gather, analyze, and display in “real time” but they did not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology such that the claims failed to state an inventive concept. Id. at 1356.
Further, a process for gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results is not a particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions. Id. Even though the claims required “displaying concurrent visualization” of two or more types of information that corresponded to time-synchronized display, the displays were anything but readily available. Id at 1355.
In other words, it is a case where selecting information for collection, analysis, and display by content or source that did nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes. Id. at 1355. The claims did not require an arguably inventive set of components or methods, did not invoke any assertedly inventive programming, and merely required the selection and manipulation of information to provide a “humanly comprehensible” amount of information useful for users that did not transform an otherwise abstract processes of information collection and analysis. Id.
Further, the Supreme Court held that mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358.
In the instant application, claims 1, 15, and 16 set forth steps (1)-(3) corresponding to collecting information limited to particular content (text to be processed and word explanation related information), analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds (determine word explanation of target entity word), and presenting / displaying the results of such collection and analysis.
Unlike Corewireless, in which the claims specifically asserted an improved user interface for computing device specifying a particular manner to access data such that the claims were directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices, the claims 1, 15, and 16 of the instant application recited no more than a conventional user interface directed to provide word explanation to target entity word.
Dependent claims 5 and 20 set forth displaying a first icon and a second icon corresponding to the target entity word. However, unlike the specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user in CoreWireless, the icons on the user interface does not set forth any limitation on what information is displayed corresponding to the target entity word.
Therefore, like the conventional display in Electric Power Grp., claims 1, 15, and 16 recited a process for gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then presenting / displaying the results is not a particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions because the displays were anything but readily available.
In other words, claims 1, 15 and 16 failed to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes. The claims did not require an arguably inventive set of components or methods, did not invoke any assertedly inventive programming, and merely required the selection and manipulation of information (clicking on first icon and second icon in dependent claims 5 and 20) to provide a “humanly comprehensible” amount of information useful for users that did not transform an otherwise abstract processes of information collection and analysis.
Finally, to the extent that claims 15 recited processor, attending software (i.e., programs), and storage apparatus (i.e., computer readable medium in claim 16), the Supreme Court held that mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358.
For example, in Alice, the Supreme Court held that data processing systems with communication controller, data storage unit, and transmission units were purely functional and generic because nearly every computer will include a "communications controller" and "data storage unit" capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions and such recitation of hardware failed to offer any meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of a method to a particular technological environment. Id. at 2360. See MPEP 2106.04(d)I (“Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h)”). Neither stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it” nor limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment is enough for patent eligibility. Id. at 2350.
Much like the data processing systems with data storage unit performing basic calculations in Alice, the recitation of processor, program instructions, and memory in claims 15-16 are purely functional and generic that failed to offer any meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the claims to computers.
Therefore, claims 1, 15, and 16 are directed to collecting information limited to particular content (text to be processed and word explanation related information), analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds (determine word explanation of target entity word), and presenting / displaying the results of such collection and analysis.
Step 2B Inventive Concept.
The Guideline stated that if the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an “inventive concept”. See MPEP 2106.04IIA and MPEP 2106.05.
Further, an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces. BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility, 827, F3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In BASCOM, the CAFC held that filtering content is an abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human behavior similar to concepts previously found to be abstract. BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1348. However, the CAFC determined that the claims did not merely recite filtering content along with the requirement to perform it on the internet or on a set of generic computer components, nor did the claims preempt all ways of filtering content on the internet. Id. at 1350.
Rather, the inventive concept described and claimed was the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user that gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on an internet service provider “ISP” server. Id. By taking a prior art filter solution (one size fits all filter at internet service provider “ISP” server) and making it more dynamic and efficient (providing individualized filtering at the ISP server), the claimed invention improves the performance of the computer system itself. Id. at 1351.
On the other hand, implementation via computers does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a “communications controller” and “data storage unit” capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims”). Intellectual Ventures I L.L.C. v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Steps that do nothing more than spell out what it means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent-eligibility).
Similarly, limiting an abstract idea to one field of use do not convert otherwise ineligible concept into an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I L.L.C. v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Neither does adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1367 (citing Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Insurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter”)).
Individually, in the instant application, claims 1, 15, and 16 set forth steps (1)-(3) corresponding to collecting information limited to particular content (text to be processed and word explanation related information), analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds (determine word explanation of target entity word), and presenting / displaying the results of such collection and analysis.
Claims 15-16 further require computer processor, storage apparatus / computer readable medium storing programs for implementing steps (1)-(3).
Such individual recitation of generic computer components (processor, software / program instructions) are purely functional and generic because nearly every computer will include such processor and data storage unit capable of performing basic calculation necessary for step (2) to make an evaluation / judgment / prediction and step (3) to present the resulting analysis (word explanation and related information corresponding to the target entity).
As an ordered combination, unlike BASCOM that describes an unconventional combination of a conventional ISP server with a customized filter specific to each user that is remote from end-users to provide both the benefits of a filter on a conventional local computer and the benefits of a filter on the conventional ISP server, using conventional computer processor, storage apparatus / computer readable medium, and readily available display do not involve a unconventional combination of conventional pieces because the combination amounts to “apply it on a computer”, which cannot convert otherwise ineligible concept into an inventive concept.
To the extent that implementing target model in the field of computers results in reduction in memory requirement and computational requirement, merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 17-19, and 21 further described the determination step (2)(a), which corresponds to analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds that are essentially mental processes within the abstract idea category.
Dependent claims 9-13 further described determination step (2)(b), which corresponds to analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds or by mathematical algorithms (dependent claims 10-13) that are essentially mental processes within the abstract idea category.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-6, 8-16, and 18-21 are not eligible for a patent.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Richard Z. Zhu whose telephone number is 571-270-1587 or examiner’s supervisor Hai Phan whose telephone number is 571-272-6338. Examiner Richard Zhu can normally be reached on M-Th, 0730:1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD Z ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654 05/30/2026
Prosecution Insights