DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is FINAL.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in responsive to communication(s):
Amendment filed on 3/26/2026.
Application filed on 2/23/2024 with effective filing date of 7/7/2022 based on PCT application PCT/CN2023/100021 and Chinese application CN 202210795690.9.
The status of the claims is summarized as below:
Claims 1, 6-11, 13, 15-16, 19, and 21-28 are pending.
Claims 1, 16, and 19 are independent claims.
In the amendment, claims 1, 6-11, 13, 15-16, 19 are amended.
Claims 21-28 are newly added.
Claims 2-5, 12, 14, 17-18, 20 are canceled.
The rejections to claims 1-20 based on 35 USC § 101 are respectfully maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/26/2026 have been fully considered, the arguments against the 101 rejections to claim 1-20 are not persuasive, while the arguments against the 103 rejections against the newly amended claims are found convincing.
Anticipation and Obviousness
The applicant’s arguments filed on 3/26/2026 against the amended claims 1, 6-11, 13, 15-16, 19, and 21-28 based on 35 USC § 103 are found convincing, the scope of the claims have been narrowed to overcome the prior art rejections. The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections based on 35 USC § 101 and 25 USC § 112(a) set forth in this Office Action below without broadening the current scope of claims.
35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant argued on pages 11-15 for the amended independent claims 1, 16, and 19 and their dependent claims based on three parts of the 2 steps test for determination of subject matter eligibility test.
Step 2A Prong one:
The applicant argues that the amended claim 1 relates to a text segmentation method performed by a computer device based on a series of operations that involves corpus based statistical analysis and large scale statistical calculations, and that the human mind cannot extract characters to generate different texts for comparison. The examiner respectfully notes that claim 1 includes limitations that are a combinations of evaluation, judgement and mathematical relationship that can all be performed in human mind. The entirety of the claim save for a few limitations that mentions computer device in a generic way, describes a mental process (perhaps aided by pen and paper) of parsing texts and determining segment point(s) both using a pre-established stop word library in the user’s head and between two adjacent two characters to perform word recognition based on the segmented text.
Step 2A Prong two:
The applicant argued that the amended claim 1 integrates the exception into a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The few limitations that mentions a computer are recited generic that are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a generic computer, or in a computer environment, and adding insignificant extra solution activity, when viewed individually or in combination. There are no limitations that make apparent this method is an improvement to existing technology implementation, and is an integrated practical application to a judicial exception.
Step 2B:
The applicant argued that the amended claim 1 recites significantly more than an abstract idea. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The few limitations that recites a computer are recited generically that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer or in a computer environment, and generic computer functions that are similar to what the courts have found to be well-understood, routine and conventional in “storing and retrieving information in memory”. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Considering these additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, they do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-11, 13, 15-16, 19, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The Office applies a two steps test when examining claims for subject-matter eligibility under § 101. First, the claimed invention must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1) explicitly listed in § 101 (Step 1). MPEP § 2106.03. Then, the claimed invention is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to one of § 101’s judicial exceptions (Step 2A Prong One) without reciting a practical application of the judicial exception (Step 2A Prong Two), and without reciting significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). MPEP § 2106.04-2106.05.
With this framework in mind, the claims will now be analyzed for subject matter eligibility under § 101.
Claim 1
Step 1. Claim 1 provides for a method comprising several steps, and is thus a “process” within the meaning of § 101. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One. The limitation(s) highlighted with italic below of claim 1 recites and is directed to the “abstract idea” judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101:
A text segmentation method performed by a computer device, comprising:
obtaining a text to be segmented,
matching a pre-established stopword list which is stored in the computer device with the text and determining a character that is in both of the text and the pre-established stopword list, determining a position of a segment point in the text according to the determined character, and determining the text as a processed text after the position of the segment point has been determined;
determining the position of the segment point between two adjacent characters in the processed text based on a first confidence and a second confidence, comprising:
obtaining a first number of occurrences of each of the two adjacent characters occurring in the processed text occurs in a preset text library, obtaining a second number of occurrences of the two adjacent characters in the processed text occurring adjacently in the preset text library, and calculating the first confidence of the segment point between the two adjacent characters based on the first number of occurrences and the second number of occurrences;
in response that the first confidence is greater than a first preset threshold, obtaining a text by removing one of the two adjacent characters from the processed text, obtaining a second text by removing the other of the two adjacent characters from the processed text, and calculating the second confidence of the segment point, which does not exist between the two adjacent characters according to the processed text, the first text and the second text;
segmenting the text according to the position of the segment point to obtain a segmented text; and
performing word recognition based on the segmented text.
As a whole, the claim recites a method of segmenting text by preprocessing the text and calculating two confidence scores between two adjacent characters in the preprocessed text to determine if there should be a segment point between the two character, and segmenting the text based on the determination to perform word recognition. The entirety of this claim, save for the method being “performed by a computer device”, step (b) of “obtaining…”, and step (c) “[a pre-established stopword list] which is stored in the computer device”, describes a mental process (perhaps aided by pen and paper) of a user reading a text and determining segment point(s) both from a pre-established stopword library and between two adjacent characters to perform word recognition based on the determined segment point for the text; (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III); steps (e) and (f) further includes mathematical formula for the calculation of first and second confidence [scores] using different elements obtained through the mental process (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong Two. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “… performed by a computer device”, step (b) “obtaining …”, and (c) “[a pre-established stopword list] which is stored in the computer device”. These additional elements do not transform the judicial exception into a practical application because they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional element of “… performed by a computer device” is tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a generic computer. The (b) “obtaining” step and (c) “storing” element amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.04(d), 2106. 5(g)). Both the “obtaining” step and “storing” element are recited generically that is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a generic computer, or in a computer environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do nothing more than adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or in a computer environment.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B. The claim does not include additional element that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the action of “performed by a computer device”, (b) “obtaining”, and (c) “stored in the computer device” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer or in a computer environment. As discussed above, the “obtaining” and the “storing” step/element represent generic computer functions that are similar to what the courts have found to be well-understood, routine and conventional in “storing and retrieving information in memory”. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6-11
Each of claims 6-11 describes additional step(s) taken within the mental process per se, or merely narrow the description of the information handle by the mental process. The claims do not add any additional element to consider for integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or for adding significantly more to the judicial exception.
Claims 13, 15
Claims 13 and 15 describes additional step(s) taken within the mental process per se, and further includes mathematical formula for the calculation of confidence scores using different elements obtained through the mental process (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). The claims do not add any additional element to consider for integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or for adding significantly more to the judicial exception.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites a computer device comprising “a processor”, and “a storage device storing computer-executable instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to” perform the same method (mental process) as set forth in claim 1, the added element of “a processor” and “a storage device storing computer-executable instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to” do not transform the judicial exception into a practical application because they are tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a generic computer. The additional elements are also not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the action of implementing the method on a general purpose computer with a processor and a storage device is tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a computer.
Claim 16 is therefore rejected according to the same findings and rationale as provided above.
Claims 21-26
Each of claims 21-26 describes additional step(s) taken within the mental process per se, or merely narrow the description of the information handle by the mental process. The claims do not add any additional element to consider for integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or for adding significantly more to the judicial exception.
Claims 27-28
Claims 27-28 describe additional step(s) taken within the mental process per se, and further includes mathematical formula for the calculation of confidence scores using different elements obtained through the mental process (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). The claims do not add any additional element to consider for integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or for adding significantly more to the judicial exception.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites a non-transitory storage medium on which the same methods (mental process) as set forth in corresponding claim 1 is stored as computer executable instructions executable by a computer device, the added element of “a non-transitory storage medium being stored computer-executable instructions thereon” do not transform the judicial exception into a practical application because they are tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a generic computer. The additional elements are also not sufficient to amount to significant more than the judicial exception because the action of implementing the method on a general purpose computer with medium is tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a computer.
Claim 19 is therefore rejected according to the same findings and rationale as provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-11, 13, 15-16, 19, and 21-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Per claim 1, claim 1 recites:
“… matching a pre-established stopword list … with the text and determining a character that is both of the text and the pre-established stopword list, determining a position of a segment point in the text according to the determined character … ;
determining the position of the segment point between two adjacent characters in the processed text based on a first confidence and a second confidence …”.
From the published specification, paragraphs [0015-0018] describe a method of determining segment positions for a preprocessed text based on evaluation of any two adjacent characters from the preprocessed text; paragraphs [0021-0023] describe how the text was preprocessed using a pre-established stopword list to determine a different set of segment point(s) based on preset stop phrases, preset stop words, preset punctuation marks, etc. included in the stopword list. It appears the segment point(s) obtained using the pre-established stopword list is/are different from and in addition to the segment point(s) obtained by using the claimed method to evaluate if there is a segment point between any two adjacent characters in the text. Thus, there is no basis for claiming the segment point determined according to the determined character from the stopword list is the same as the segment point determined using the claimed method between two adjacent characters, as shown in the recited portion of claim 1 above. Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 6-11, 13, and 15 depend from claim 1, and are also rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 16 and 19 includes similar limitations as claim 1, and are likewise rejected as failing to comply the written description requirement.
Claims 21-28 depend from claim 16, and are also rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6-11, 13, 15-16, 19, and 21-28 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US Patents & Publications
US 20120281919 A1
Abdulkader; Ahmad et al.
Method for segmenting text into text segments, involves updating set of valid segmentation points based on validation performed for determining whether segmentation points are indicative of valid segmentation point or not
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support by shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections, See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHOEBE X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/PHOEBE X PAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights