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 in responsive to communication(s):
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 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 16, and 19 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 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 four part 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, comprising:
obtaining a text to be segmented,
preprocessing the text and determining a processed text;
calculating a confidence of a segment point between two adjacent characters in the processed text, and determining a position of the segment point in the processed text based on the confidence; and
segmenting the text according to the position.
As a whole, the claim recites a method of segmenting text by preprocessing the text and calculating a confidence 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 according to the determination. The entirety of this claim, save for the limitation of (b) “obtaining…”, describes a mental process (perhaps aided by pen and paper) of a user reading a text and determining segment points between each two characters. (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong Two. Claim 1 recites an additional step of (b) “obtaining” for performing the method. This additional step do not transform the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional step is recited at a high level of generality. The step is mere additional element that amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.04(d), 2106. 5(g)). The “obtaining” step is 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)).
Accordingly, the additional element 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 (b) “obtaining” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer or in a computer environment. As discussed above, the “obtaining” limitation represents generic computer function that is 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)). Accordingly, the additional element do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-12, 14
Each of claims 2-12, 14 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 17-18
Claims 17-18 describes additional step(s) taken within the mental process per se from claim 16. 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 20
Claim 20 describes additional step(s) taken within the mental process per se from claim 19. 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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 110705261, from IDS dated 3/14/2024, hereinafter Zhang), in view of Magdalen et al. (US Pub 20090150145, hereinafter Magdalen).
Per claim 1, Zhang teaches:
A text segmentation method, comprising: (page 1 abstract: Chinese text word segmentation method)
obtaining a text to be segmented, preprocessing the text and determining a processed text; (Page 6 line 44 – page 7 line 22, Fig. 1: step 101-102 from Fig. 1 shows after getting text, preset punctuation and preset characters, as well as breakpoints words are used to preprocessing text to determine segment points, where the text is preprocessed to be broken into sentences, and sections in sentences);
Zhang does not explicitly teach calculating confidence between a pair of adjacent characters in the text: “calculating a confidence of a segment point between two adjacent characters in the processed text, and determining a position of the segment point in the processed text based on the confidence; and segmenting the text according to the position”.
However, Magdalen teaches a text segmentation method by evaluating break point between each paired characters in a text input (abstract):
calculating a confidence of a segment point between two adjacent characters in the processed text, and determining a position of the segment point in the processed text based on the confidence; and segmenting the text according to the position. ([0037-0038, 0040] Fig. 4 shows the text break processor 300 (from Fig. 3) processes the characters of text 420 in pairs, such as (402, 404), (404, 406), where the comparator 304 is used to compare a calculated value (confidence of a segment point) with a threshold value when determining a strength of a character pairing; [0043-0047] Fig. 6 shows the process of identifying and breaking text at weak pair, where a segment point is identified to be between the characters if a pair of character is determined to be weak pair).
Magdalen and Zhang are analogous art because Magdalen also teaches method text segmentations that is well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Zhang and Magdalen before him/her, to modify the teachings of Zhang to include the teachings of Magdalen so that after using stop word dictionary to process the text, a well-known text segmentation method can be employed to traverse the text to segment the rest of the unsegmented text. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide a faster way to segment text with a predefined dictionary of stop word first, then utilize a well-known text traversal method to find the rest of the segment points besides those found by the stop word dictionary, providing a faster and more reliable text segmentation method.
Per claim 2, Zhang-Magdalen teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein calculating the confidence of the segment point between two adjacent characters in the processed text, comprises:
calculating a first confidence of the segment point between two adjacent characters in the processed text. (Magdalen [0043-0044] Fig. 6 shows step 606 where calculation is made to be compared to a threshold value to determine if there is a segment point between two characters).
Per claim 3, Zhang-Magdalen teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein calculating the confidence of the segment point between two adjacent characters in the processed text, comprises: calculating a second confidence of the segment point, which does not exist between two adjacent characters in the processed text”. (Magdalen [0048-0052] Fig. 7 shows a step 716, where determination is made if the two adjacent characters is a strong pair – confidence of a segment point does not exist between two adjacent characters, where “Yes” leads to step 718 where there is no segment point between the two characters).
Per claim 5, Zhang-Magdalen teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein preprocessing the text and determining the processed text comprises:
matching a pre-established stopword list with the text and determining a character that is in both of the text and the pre-established stopword list; (Zhang page 7 line 10-22, line 38-46, page 8 line 34-36: a library of breakpoint words is constructed and used to identify breakpoint words in the sentences from the text);
determining the position of the segment point in the text according to the determined character, and determining the text as the processed text after the position of the segment point has been determined. (Zhang page 8 line 38-54: based on the breakpoint word library, the segment points in sentences are determined recorded, the positions are replaced with symbol/identifier to mark the segment points).
Per claim 6, Zhang-Magdalen teach all the limitations of claim 5, and further teach:
wherein after determining the processed text, the method further comprises: recording a position of the determined character in the processed text. (Zhang page 8 line 49-55: predetermined symbol/identifier are used to record the positions of the segment points in sentences).
Per claim 7, Zhang-Magdalen teach all the limitations of claim 6, and further teach:
wherein calculating the confidence of the segment point between two adjacent characters in the processed text, and determining the position of the segment point in the processed text based on the confidence, comprises:
determining a starting position of the processed text as a traversal starting position and executing a first traversal process; (Magdalen: Fig. 4 shows the process of traversing the text where each adjacent pair is traversed)
in response that the position of the segment point is determined, determining the position of the segment point as the traversal starting position and repeating the first traversal process until the processed text is executed; (Magdalen Fig. 4 shows that after the segment point between two adjacent character is determined, the process continues using the segment point as a starting point to examine the next two adjacent characters);
in response that a recorded position is traversed, traversing from the recorded position that is traversed until a next recorded position is traversed, and determining the next recorded position as the traversal starting position and repeating the first traversal process until the processed text has been executed. (Zhang page 9 line 12-42: after segments points are recorded, the broken sections of the sentences are traversed to determine additional segment points in each section).
Per claim 8, Zhang-Magdalen teach all the limitations of claim 7, and further teach:
wherein the first traversal process comprises:
traversing every two adjacent characters from the traversal starting position, calculating a first confidence of the segment point between each two adjacent characters that have been traversed, and/or calculating a second confidence of the segment point, which does not exist between every two adjacent characters that have been traversed, (Magdalen [0048-0053] Fig. 7 shows a flowchart for traversing the input text, where confidence score is calculated for each adjacent pair at step 712 (first confidence);
determining whether there is the segment point between every two adjacent characters that have been traversed according to a calculation result, until the position of the segment point is determined or the recorded position is traversed, or an ending position of the processed text is traversed.(Magdalen [0048-0053] Fig. 7 shows a flowchart for traversing the input text, where confidence score is calculated for each adjacent pair at step 712 (first confidence), until the end of the text is reached).
Per claim 9, Zhang-Magdalen teach all the limitations of claim 7, and further teach:
wherein calculating the confidence of the segment point between two adjacent characters in the processed text, and determining the position of the segment point in the processed text based on the confidence, comprises:
segmenting the processed text according to the starting position, the ending position and the recorded position of the processed text, and determining a plurality of sub-texts; (Zhang page 9 line 1-27: after the text is broken into sentences and subsections using punctuations and breakpoint words library, each segment points are marked with predetermined symbol/identifier, and each subsection of the sentences are further broken down using the method shown in Fig. 2);
determining the starting position of the sub-text as the traversal starting position and perform a second traversal process; (Zhang page 9 line 20-27, a second traversal is performed using method in Fig. 2 to traverse each subsection (sub-text));
in response that the position of the segment point is determined, determining the position of the segment point as the traversal starting position and repeating the second traversal process until the sub-text has been traversed. (Zhang page 9 line 20-27: the subsections of sentences are traversed to further break down the sections based on Fig. 2; see also Magdalen [0048-0053] Fig. 7 shows a flowchart for traversing the input text, where confidence score is calculated for each adjacent pair at step 712 (first confidence), until the end of the text is reached).
Per claim 10, Zhang-Magdalen teach all the limitations of claim 9, and further teach:
wherein the second traversal process comprises:
traversing every two adjacent characters from the traversal starting position, calculating a first confidence of the segment point between every two adjacent characters that have been traversed, and/or, calculating a second confidence of the segment point, which does not exist between every two adjacent characters that have been traversed, (Magdalen [0048-0053] Fig. 7 shows a flowchart for traversing the input text, where confidence score is calculated for each adjacent pair at step 712 (first confidence));
determining whether there is the segment point between each two adjacent characters that have been traversed according to a calculation result, until the position of the segment point is determined or the ending position of the sub-text is traversed. (Magdalen [0048-0053] Fig. 7 shows a flowchart for traversing the input text, where confidence score is calculated for each adjacent pair at step 712 (first confidence), until the end of the text is reached).
Per claim 11, Zhang-Magdalen teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein calculating the confidence of the segment point between two adjacent characters in the processed text, and determining the position of the segment point in the processed text based on the confidence, comprises:
calculating a first confidence of the segment point between two adjacent characters; in response that the first confidence is less than or equal to a first preset threshold, determining that there is no segment point between the two adjacent characters; in response that the first confidence is greater than the first preset threshold, calculating a second confidence of the segment point, which does not exist between the two adjacent characters; in response that the second confidence is less than a second preset threshold, determining that there is the segment point between the two adjacent characters, in response that the second confidence is greater than or equal to the second preset threshold, determining that there is no segment point between the two adjacent characters;
or,
in the processed text, calculating the second confidence of the segment point, which does not exist between two adjacent characters; in response that the second confidence is greater than or equal to the second preset threshold, determining that there is no segment point between two adjacent characters, in response that the second confidence is less than the second preset threshold, calculating the first confidence of the segment point between two adjacent characters; in response that the first confidence is greater than the first preset threshold, determining that there is the segment point between two adjacent characters, in response that the first confidence is less than or equal to the first preset threshold, determining that there is no segment point between two adjacent characters. (Magdalen [0048-0053] Fig. 7 shows a flowchart for traversing the input text, where confidence score is calculated for each adjacent pair at step 712 (first confidence); in response to the current pair of adjacent character being a strong pair at step 714-716 (second confidence greater than a predetermine value), i.e. the confident the two character should not be separated, “Yes” flow to step 718 to keep the pair together; if the confident is less than the threshold – “No” at step 716, the ratio measure compared to the local minimum is calculated (first confidence) at step 722, in response to there is a local minimum value of the ratio measures (true, value >= true) – “Yes” leads to step 724, where there is a segment point between the pair; in response to there is a local minimum (false, value < true) – “No” leads to step 720 to get next pair).
Per claim 12, Zhang-Magdalen teach all the limitations of claim 2, and further teach:
wherein calculating the first confidence of the segment point between two adjacent characters in the processed text, comprises: obtaining a first number of occurrences of each of the two adjacent characters occurs in a preset text library, and obtaining a second number of occurrences of the two adjacent characters occur adjacently in the preset text library; (Magdalen [0041-0042] Fig. 5 shows as part pseudo code 502 shown, the number of appearance of the first and second character in the text are calculated as Nx and Ny (first number), and the two characters appearing adjacent together is calculated as Nxy (second number) in the text (preset text library));
calculating the first confidence of the segment point between two adjacent characters based on the first number of occurrences corresponding to each character of the two adjacent characters and the second number of occurrences. (Magdalen [0041-0042] Fig. 5 shows the ratio calculation of step 606 from Fig. 6 involves Nx, Ny (first number) and Nxy (second number) in pseudo code 504 section).
Per claim 13, Zhang-Magdalen teach all the limitations of claim 12, and further teach:
wherein calculating the first confidence of the segment point between two adjacent characters based on the first number of occurrences corresponding to each character of the two adjacent characters and the second number of occurrences, comprises: (Magdalen [0041-0042] Fig. 5 pseudo code section 502-504 includes Nx, Ny, (first number), Nxy (second number))
obtaining a product by multiplying the first number of occurrences corresponding to each character of the two adjacent characters, and calculating a ratio of the product to the second number of occurrences; (Magdalen [0041-0042] Fig. 5 pseudo code section 504 involves multiplying Nx, Ny in the denominator, and calculating a ratio of (Nx * Ny) with Nxy (second number).
and determining the first confidence of the segment point between two adjacent characters based on the ratio. (Magdalen [0041-0044] Fig. 6 step 606 determines the ratio/score of the segment point between the two adjacent characters based on the ratio shown in Fig. 5)
Per claim 16, claim 16 is a system (computer device) claim comprising a processor (Magdalen Fig. 2 processor 204) and a storage device (Magdalen Fig. 2 memory 206, persistent storage 208), and include limitations that are substantially the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
Per claim 17-18, claim 17-18 include limitations that are substantially the same as claims 2-3 respectively, and are likewise rejected.
Per claim 19, claim 19 is a medium claim (Magdalen Fig. 2 memory 206, persistent storage 208), and include limitations that are substantially the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
Per claim 20, claim 20 include limitations that are substantially the same as claim 2, and is likewise rejected.
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).
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