DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s Amended submission filed on 4/16/2026. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 2. Claims 1-7 are pending and have been examined. Claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112 f Claim interpretation
Applicant’s amendments and arguments are considered are persuasive, therefore the 112f claim interpretation has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections
Applicant’s amendments and arguments are considered but are either unpersuasive or moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
35 U.S.C. 102 Rejections
Applicant’s amendments and arguments are considered but are either unpersuasive or moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims limitations that cover performance of the limitations performing mathematical calculation or concept / or mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a memory storing a program, a processor configured to read the program from the memory and execute the program to perform operation”, nothing in these claim limitations precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or performing math calculation. As a whole, claim 1 pertains to performing vector distance calculation, which is a mathematical concept, which also can be performed by a mental process (with assistance of pen/paper) that a human can do. Individually, each of the limitations also pertains to a math calculation/or mental process, for example:
calculating a distance between vectors defined for the words; (e.g., calculating a distance between vectors defined for the words is involves math calculation/concept, this could also be perform by a human with assistance of paper and pen, figuring in out how close the words are.)
and determining a pair of the words corresponding to the vectors to be synonyms when the distance between the vectors is smaller than or equal to a predefined distance, (e.g., human can use judgement and/or comparison to determine when distance between vector is smaller or equal to a predefined threshold.)
wherein calculating the distance between the vectors comprises calculating, as the distance between the vectors, a curvilinear surface distance between the vectors in a hyperbolic space in which the vectors are defined. (e.g., calculating curvilinear surface distance is a mathematical calculation/concept, this step also may be done by human with assistance of paper and pen.)
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recites generic computing components. Such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving, determining, or outputting information) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of using generic computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
The examiner further notes that the use of claimed generic computer components (“a memory storing a program, a processor”) to obtain, extract, and/or generate data invokes such generic computer components “merely as a tool to perform an existing process”. MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) further explains:
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim 1 recites generic computer components (“a memory storing a program, a processor”), with respect to performing tasks. MPEP 2106.05(d) and (f) further provides examples of court decisions where the courts found generic computing components to be mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and further explains “increased speed” (e.g., using a computer to increase the speed of an otherwise mental process) does not provide an inventive concept. For example:
A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added).
Performing repetitive calculations. Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.")
Claim 6 recites non-transitory recording medium claim that corresponds to the apparatus of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same grounds as claim 1 above. While claim 6 further recites “a non-transitory recording medium storing a similarity calculation program including plurality of commands to be executed by one or more processors and executable by a computer”, these are merely generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, none of these limitations (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because in either case the additional limitations merely utilize generic computer components that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer function. Claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites a method claim that corresponds to the apparatus of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same grounds as claim 1 above. Claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 further comprising: wherein each of the vectors is described by Euclidean coordinates, and the curvilinear surface distance is a value obtained by multiplying a distance between the Euclidean coordinates of the vectors by a curvature of a curved surface of the hyperbolic space between the vectors. (e.g., calculating the curvilinear surface distance value is a mathematical calculation/concept.)
Claim 3 further comprising: wherein the curvature is represented by a norm of a vector product of the vectors. (e.g., normalizing vector product is a mathematical concept/calculation.)
Claim 4 further comprising: wherein the determination part associates the pair of words determined to be the synonyms with each other, and registers the pair of words in a synonym dictionary. (e.g., human can associate pair of words determined to be synonyms, and write down the pairing in a notebook for record keeping.)
In sum, claims 2-4 depend from claim 1, and further recite mental processes as explained above. None of the additional limitations recited in claims 2-4 amount to anything more than the same or a similar abstract idea as recited in claim 1. Nor do any limitations in claims 2-4: (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations of using generic computer components amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claims 2-4 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leimeister, M., & Wilson, B. J. (2018). Skip-gram word embeddings in hyperbolic space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.01498, in view of Okada (US 20200341973).
Regarding Claim 1, Leimeister discloses: 1. (Currently Amended) A similarity calculation apparatus that calculates a similarity between words, the apparatus comprising: a memory storing a program; ([Abstract] use of algorithm for learning word embedding in hyperbolic space imply the use of a computer which would contain memory to store program)[secondary references also contains memory storing a program]
and a processor configured to read the program from the memory and execute the program to perform operations comprising: ([Abstract] use of algorithm for learning word embedding in hyperbolic space imply the use of a computer which would contain a processor)[secondary reference also use processor]
calculating a distance between vectors defined for the words; ([Abstract] we present an algorithm for learning word embeddings in hyperbolic space from free text. An objective function based on the hyperbolic distance is derived and included in the skip-gram negative-sampling architecture of word2vec. The hyperbolic word embeddings are then evaluated on word similarity and analogy bench marks. The results demonstrate the potential of hyperbolic word embeddings, particularly in low dimensions, though without clear superiority over their Euclidean counterparts. We further discuss subtleties in the formulation of the analogy task in curved spaces.)
and determining a pair of the words corresponding to the vectors to be synonyms when the distance between the vectors is smaller than or equal to a predefined distance, ([Abstract] The hyperbolic word embeddings are then evaluated on word similarity and analogy bench marks.) [evaluating word similarity implicitly requires some type of similarity or distance threshold, this step is implied or obvious, but nevertheless a secondary reference will be bought in to show this step is also obvious]
wherein calculating the distance between the vectors comprises calculating, as the distance between the vectors, a curvilinear surface distance between the vectors in a hyperbolic space in which the vectors are defined. ([Abstract] An objective function based on the hyperbolic distance is derived and included in the skip-gram negative-sampling architecture of word2vec. The hyperbolic word embeddings are then evaluated on word similarity and analogy bench marks. The results demonstrate the potential of hyperbolic word embeddings, particularly in low dimensions, though without clear superiority over their Euclidean counterparts. We further discuss subtleties in the formulation of the analogy task in curved spaces. [sect 4.2] optimization in hyperbolic space: The paths that are mapped out by the exponential map are called geodesic curves. The geodesics of Hn are its intersections with two-dimensional planes through the origin. For a point p ∈ Hn and an initial direction v ∈ TpHn the geodesic curve is given by γp,v : R → Hn, γp,v(t) = cosh( v t)·p+sinh( v t)· ˆv, where ˆv := v v . The hyperbolic distance for two points p,q ∈ Hn is computed by dHn(p,q) = arccosh(−p,qM). (6) (7) The closed form formulas for geodesics and the hyperbolic distance make the hyperboloid model attractive for formulating optimisation problems in hyperbolic space. In other models the equations take a more complicated form (c.f. the hyperbolic distance and update equations on the Poincaré)
Although Leimeister appears to teach this implicitly, a secondary reference will be cited to show this is obvious: determining a pair of the words corresponding to the vectors to be synonyms when the distance between the vectors is smaller than or equal to a predefined distance.
Okada in the related art of determining synonym calculation discloses: and determining a pair of the words corresponding to the vectors to be synonyms when the distance between the vectors is smaller than or equal to a predefined distance, ([0174] in step S1206, the synonym calculation processing unit 104 calculates the similarity between the vector of the search word and the vectors of the other words. The synonym calculation processing unit 104 provides a threshold value in the order rearranged from the closest vector distance, defines the words within the threshold value as the synonyms for the search word, and takes the vector distance as the similarity with respect to the search word to generate the synonym list 614.)
Okada discloses a memory and computer processor in para 0093.
Leimeister and Okada are considered analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Leimeister to combine the teaching of Okada, because define words within threshold value as synonyms enable machine to understand and define synonyms (Okada, [0174]).
Regarding Claim 6, Leimeister discloses: 6. (Original) A non-transitory recording medium storing a similarity calculation program including a plurality of commands to be executed by one or more processors and executable by a computer, the similarity calculation program when being installed in the computer and executed by the computer functioning as, using the plurality of commands executed by the one or more processors, the following steps comprising: ([Abstract] use of algorithm for learning word embedding in hyperbolic space imply the use of a computer which would contain a non-transitory recording medium)
Okada discloses a memory and computer processor in para 0093, and recording medium in para 0272 and 0275.
As for the rest of the claim, the claim recites the elements from the apparatus of claim 1, therefore similar rationale and ground of rejection is also applicable.
Claim 7 is a method claim that recites the elements from the apparatus of claim 1, therefore similar rationale and ground of rejection is also applicable.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leimeister, M., & Wilson, B. J. (2018). Skip-gram word embeddings in hyperbolic space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.01498, in view of Okada (US 20200341973), and further in view of Agatsuma (US 20240242026).
Regarding Claim 4, Leimeister and Okada disclose all the elements of claim 1,
Leimeister and Okada are silent in wherein the determination part associates the pair of words determined to be the synonyms with each other, and registers the pair of words in a synonym dictionary.
Agatsuma in the related art of synonym determination discloses: wherein the determination part associates the pair of words determined to be the synonyms with each other, and registers the pair of words in a synonym dictionary. ([0044] The synonym determination apparatus 100 determines whether two words in a word pair extracted from document data are synonyms or not, registers a word pair determined to be synonyms in a synonym dictionary,)
Leimeister, Okada and Agatsuma are considered analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Leimeister and Okada to combine the teaching of Agatsuma, because registering word pair that are synonyms in a dictionary enable future use or application (Agatsuma, [0044]).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 would be potentially allowable if amended to overcome the pertinent rejections under section 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 2, the closest prior art found is Leimeister discloses hyperbolic space, where points or vectors are represented inside Euclidean vector space, and details how geodesics and distances are computed. However, it is use a different formula and therefore do not teach the claim as recited which requires multiplying Euclidean coordinates by a curvature value.
Notwithstanding, said aforementioned teachings of prior art cited is respectfully reconsidered and found to fail to teach or fairly suggest either individually or in a reasonable combination the presented limitations in claim 2, as specifically recited.
Claim 3, which depends on claim 2, also contains similar allowable subject matter, therefore it is also found potentially allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Anand US 20240004912- discloses clustering system that includes topic words and words that are semantically similar. See Abstract and para 0026, 0054-0055, 0057 and figs. 1-4 for additional details.
Drake US 11308945 -discloses hyperbolic embedding that indicates word similarity. See col. 8, 10 and 13 and fig. 2 for additional details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip H Lam whose telephone number is (571)272-1721. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-2 PM Pacific time.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 571-272-7453. 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.
/PHILIP H LAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2656
