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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Chinese application 202110978280.3 filed on 08/24/2021. Certified copy of said foreign application has been received.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic priority based on PCT application PCT/CN2022/112785 filed on 08/16/2022.
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 1-13 and 15-21 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, or a computer-readable storage medium, or any combination thereof. For example, the computer-readable storage medium may be, but is not limited to, an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any suitable combination thereof. More specific examples of the computer-readable storage medium may include, but are not limited to, an electrical connection having on one or more wires, a portable computer disk, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read only memory (EPROM or a flash memory), an optical fiber, a portable compact disk read only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination thereof. In the embodiment of the disclosure, the computer-readable storage medium may be any tangible medium including or storing a program. The program may be used by or in combination with an instruction execution system, apparatus or device. In the embodiment of the disclosure, 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. The transmitted data signal may be in various forms, which may be, but is not limited to, an electromagnetic signal, an optical signal, or any suitable combination thereof. The computer-readable signal medium may also be any computer-readable medium other than the computer-readable storage medium. The computer-readable signal medium may send, propagate or transmit a program used by or in combination with an instruction execution system, apparatus or device”.
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) obtain text to be processed, and (2)(a) determine a target entity word in the text to be processed, thereby generating a target entity word set;
(2)(b) determine a word explanation corresponding to the target entity word in the target entity word set based on the text to be processed, and (1)(b) obtain related information corresponding to the word explanation; and
(3) 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, wherein the target information comprises the target entity word set, the word explanation corresponding to the target entity word in the target entity word set, and the related information.
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, step (1) 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, step (2) 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 1-13 and 15-21 are not eligible for a patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—
(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—
(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-10, 13, 15-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiong et al. (CN 109635114 A, see attached SIPO translation).
Regarding Claims 1, 15, and 16, Xiong discloses an electronic device (Fig. 7), comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 7, CPU 701); and
a storage apparatus / computer readable medium storing one or more programs (Fig. 7, RAM 703), wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (¶95, “In RAM 703, also it is stored with system 700 and operates required various programs and data”):
obtain text to be processed, and determine a target entity word in the text to be processed (¶¶41-42, step 201, obtain text information and parse text information to determine entity in text information; see Fig. 4, ¶55, step 401, determine entity in text information), thereby generating a target entity word set (¶¶44-45, step 202 and ¶56, step 402, extract contextual information of entity from text information such as statement / sentence or paragraph containing the entity as context information of the entity, wherein contextual information of the entity characterizes the meaning of the entity in the text information);
determine a word explanation corresponding to the target entity word in the target entity word set based on the text to be processed (¶¶48-49, step 204, compute similarity between contextual information of the entity and entity description information corresponding to the entity), and obtain related information corresponding to the word explanation (¶43, entity description information comprising encyclopedia entry, text information, image information, audio information, video information corresponding to the entity; see Fig. 3, ¶52, link to anchor point from the entity description information corresponding to the entity “Generative Model”); and
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 (Fig. 3, “Generative Model G”), wherein the target information comprises the target entity word set (¶52, create anchor point for “Generative Model”), the word explanation corresponding to the target entity word in the target entity word set (¶52, Fig. 3, corresponding entity description information for “Generative Model G”), and the related information (¶52, link of anchor point).
Regarding Claims 2 and 17, Xiong discloses wherein the determining a target entity word in the text to be processed comprises:
determining at least one candidate entity word in the text to be processed (p. 8, ¶4, step 201, parse text information to determine entity in text information); and
obtaining first target text, and selecting the target entity word from the at least one candidate entity word based on the first target text, wherein the first target text is text adjacent to the text to be processed and before the text to be processed (p. 8, ¶¶7-8, extract contextual information of entity from text information, such as extract sentence comprising the entity from text information).
Regarding Claims 3 and 18, Xiong discloses wherein the determining at least one candidate entity word in the text to be processed comprises:
performing word segmentation on the text to be processed to obtain a word segmentation result (¶43, perform word segmentation text information to obtain key in text information); and
looking up an entity word matching the word segmentation result in a preset entity word set as the at least one candidate entity word (¶43, match keyword to corresponding entity sets corresponding to the entity description information set to obtain matching results).
Regarding Claims 4 and 19, Xiong discloses wherein the determining at least one candidate entity word in the text to be processed comprises:
performing word segmentation on the text to be processed to obtain a word segmentation result (¶43, segment text information to obtain key in text information per step 201; see also ¶55, step 401); and
obtaining, for each word in the word segmentation result, a word feature of the word, inputting the word feature of the word into a pre-trained entity word recognition model ( ¶¶59-60, step 404, input entity contextual information (i.e., sentence from text information comprising the entity) into a pre-trained first feature extraction model to obtain feature vector of entity’s contextual information), obtaining a recognition result of the word, and determining, if the recognition result indicates that the word is an entity word, the word to be a candidate entity word, wherein the recognition result is used to indicate that the word is an entity word or to indicate that the word is not an entity word (¶61, the first feature extraction model can match entity contextual information to context information of sample entities in a relation table comprising multiple sample entities and corresponding feature vectors; if there is a matching sample entity whose context information to the contextual information of the entity, then the corresponding feature vector of the context information of the sample entity is found as feature vector for entity contextual information).
Regarding Claims 6 and 21, Xiong discloses wherein the selecting the target entity word from the at least one candidate entity word based on the first target text comprises:
determining, for a candidate entity word in the at least one candidate entity word, the candidate entity word to be the target entity word in response to determining that the candidate entity word does not exist in the first target text (¶61, the first feature extraction model can match entity contextual information to sample entities in a relation table comprising multiple sample entities and corresponding feature vectors; if there is a sample entity whose context information is similar to (i.e., not an exact match to) the contextual information of the entity (i.e., sentence / paragraph comprising the entity or text adjacent to and before the text to be processed), then the corresponding feature vector of the contextual information of the sample entity is found as feature vector for entity contextual information).
Regarding Claim 9, Xiong discloses wherein the determining a word explanation corresponding to the target entity word in the target entity word set based on the text to be processed comprises:
determining whether a target entity word corresponding to at least two word explanations exists in the target entity word set (¶64, step 405, obtain a table storing correspondence between entity description information (i.e., entity description information set per ¶6) and corresponding feature vectors of multiple sample entities);
if exists, extracting the target entity word corresponding to at least two word explanations from the target entity word set, thereby generating a target entity word subset (¶64, step 405, obtain entity description information being stored with multiple sample entities with corresponding feature vectors in the table); and
determining, for each target entity word in the target entity word subset, a similarity between the target entity word and each word explanation of the at least two word explanations corresponding to the target entity word based on second target text, and determining the word explanation corresponding to the target entity word based on the similarity (¶¶65-66, step 406, calculate cosine similarity value L between (1) feature vector f1 of entity contextual information and (2) feature vector f2 of entity description information; ¶67, step 407, if cosine similarity is greater than a first preset similarity threshold, then create entity anchor point link (Fig. 3)), wherein the second target text is text adjacent to the target entity word in the text to be processed (per ¶¶44-45, entity contextual information being sentence / statement or paragraph comprising the entity from text information).
Regarding Claim 10, Xiong discloses wherein the determining a similarity between the target entity word and each word explanation of at least two word explanations corresponding to the target entity word based on second target text comprises:
performing semantic encoding on the second target text to obtain a first semantic vector (¶59, input entity contextual information into pre-trained first feature extraction model to obtain feature vector of contextual information); and
performing, for each word explanation of the at least two word explanations corresponding to the target entity word (¶5, a preset set of entity description information), semantic encoding on the word explanation to obtain a second semantic vector (¶62, input entity description information to pre-trained second feature extraction model to obtain feature vector of corresponding entity description information), and
determining a similarity between the first semantic vector and the second semantic vector as the similarity between the target entity word and the word explanation (¶¶65-66, step 406, calculate cosine similarity value L between (1) feature vector f1 of entity contextual information and (2) feature vector f2 of entity description information).
Regarding Claim 13, Xiong discloses wherein after the determining the word explanation corresponding to the target entity word based on the similarity, the method further comprises: deleting, in response to determining that the similarity between each word explanation of the at least two word explanations corresponding to the target entity word and the target entity word is smaller than a preset similarity threshold, the target entity word from the target entity word set, thereby obtaining a new target entity word set as the target entity word set (¶66, two vectors point in completely opposite directions if the value of cosine similarity is -1 and therefore the value provided is between 0 to 1; i.e., if cosine similarity is less than the first default similarity threshold, then the corresponding entity description information is not provided).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 11 is rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Xiong et al. (CN 109635114 A) in view of Denholm et al. (US 2020/0089803 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Xiong discloses determining a similarity between the target entity word and each word explanation of at least two word explanations corresponding to the target entity word based on second target text comprising extracting a preset number of words adjacent to the target entity word from the text to be processed as target words (per ¶¶44-45, entity contextual information being sentence / statement or paragraph comprising the entity from text information); and performing, for each word explanation of the at least two word explanations corresponding to the target entity word, coincidence matching on the word explanation and the target words (¶¶65-66, step 406, calculate cosine similarity value L between (1) feature vector f1 of entity contextual information and (2) feature vector f2 of entity description information; ¶67, step 407, if cosine similarity is greater than a first preset similarity threshold, then create entity anchor point link (Fig. 3)).
Xiong does not disclose determining a ratio of the number of coincident words to the number of the target words as the similarity between the target entity word and the word explanation.
Denholm discloses determining a similarity between target entity word and each word explanation of at least two word explanations corresponding to the target entity word based on second target text comprising extracting a preset number of words adjacent to the target entity word from the text to be processed as target words (Abstract, select a portion of received text for analysis and determine one or more important keywords within the selected portion of received text, accessing a link to an external source in the body of the received text to obtain one or more important keywords therein) and performing, for each word explanation of the at least two word explanations corresponding to the target entity word, coincidence matching on the word explanation and the target words (Abstract, compare the one or more important keywords within the selected portion of the received text with important keywords within selected portion of text obtained from the link to the external source) and determining a ratio of the number of coincident words to the number of the target words as the similarity between the target entity word and the word explanation (¶34, assign a relevance rating to each determined keyword depending on the comparison of one or more important keywords within the selected portion of received text with the one or more important keywords within selected portion of obtained text from the link to generate a matching percentage).
It would’ve been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine a ratio of number of coincident words to the number of target words as the similarity between the target entity word and the word explanation in order to check the word explanation / link to external source for relevance (Denholm, ¶34).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 110231907 A discloses a sidebar auxiliary display area displaying word explanation corresponding to target entity word (Fig. 1).
CN 110516259 B discloses extracting text information from file pages, perform word segmentation to text information to obtain phrase, perform semantic analysis on phrase to determine entity word, identifying entity word for describing product technology as technical key word, and automatically screening description product by semantic analysis of technical key word.
CN 112232067 A discloses training text evaluation model based on training sample set comprising positive samples and negative samples, the positive sample corresponds to click rate of a push document greater than threshold value where negative sample corresponds to click rate less than threshold value of the push document, the click rate refers to ratio of click times of push text to display time (Fig. 11, step 1101).
US 2020/0380021 A1 discloses neural language model to obtain embedding vector of search query terms and data records (i.e., word explanation), the neural language model generates a corresponding embedding for each term, weighting each of the embeddings based on a weighting factor (IDF or inverse document frequency) associated with the corresponding term, and combining the embeddings to generate a single embedding by summing or averaging the embeddings (¶47).
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 01/21/2026