DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the office action from 2/10/2026, the applicant has submitted an amendment, filed 4/28/2026, amending claims 1-4, 6-11, 14-17, 19-20, cancelling claims 5, 12, 18, while arguing to traverse the prior art and other rejections. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and determined persuasive with respect to the prior art and 112 rejections, but not with respect to the Alice 101 rejections. Therefore claims 1-4, 6-11, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected for the reasons explained in the response to arguments and also in the new office action.
Response to Arguments
Following broad overviews of the last office action and some of the applicant’s responses on page 12, on page 13 the 2nd and the 3rd ¶’s the previous objections are discussed.
Due to the latest amendments the said objections are overcome and withdrawn.
Pages 13-15 discuss the previous 112(b) rejections.
Due to the latest amendments, the said rejections are withdrawn.
From the 3rd ¶ on page 16 to the end of that page the previous 103 rejections are discussed.
Due to the latest amendments which have absorbed the allowed dependent claim 5 by the independent claims 1, 8 and 15, the said rejection is now overcome.
Following copying of the entire claim 1 on page 17 and part of page 18, on page 19 numerous conclusions regarding “Judicial Exception” are made: i.e.:
P. 19 ¶ 3 last S: “A human reading a sentence does not explicitly perform dependency grammar analysis or identify formal “sentence trunk” according to grammatical rules”
In the absence of any definition (even broad definition) for the “sentence trunk” including any specific technique for how it is even generated throughout the entire original disclosure, therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation it must correspond to e.g. a phrase or any portion associated with a sentence and/or obtained from a parse tree associated with the sentence. A human can certainly determine dependency grammar analysis for a phrase associated with a sentence.
P. 19 ¶ 4 S before last: Regarding “performing a grammar back-tracing operation”, it is recited: “This is a recursive algorithmic operation that traces syntactic dependencies through multiple layers to establish connections to the sentence trunk. This is not a mental operation that a human would perform when reading text”.
As an initial matter respectfully where can one find the said “recursive algorithmic operation” throughout the original disclosure? Furthermore, even if one accepts this assertion, this sounds like a mathematical procedure which still is directed to an abstract idea of the “Mathematical Concepts” type.
P. 19 ¶ 5-8 and P. 20 ¶ 1all discuss “replac[ing]” “words” (textual content) with either “fuzzy text” and/or “substitution identifiers” and it is concluded: “This is not something a human could perform with pen and paper, as it requires systematic application of formal grammatical rules … and large-scale text transformation that is inherently computational”.
According to the specification ¶ 0032: “transforming the to-be-recognized fuzzy text to a to-be-recognized fuzzy text vector, and transforming the example sentence fuzzy text to an example sentence fuzzy text vector”; i.e., “fuzzy” “text” is merely obtained by a transformation of a regular text into a vector representation. For this operation all is needed is simply a lookup table teaching mapping of each textual word to a vector representation and this can be done by a human.
In section titled “Step 2” from the bottom of page 20 to the beginning of page 21 the amendment limitations to the independent claims are reproduced and then it is concluded: “These elements are not conventional, routine, or well-understood activities in the field. They represent a specific approach to text processing that improves entity relationship recognition”. On this topic it is further concluded on page 21 ¶ before last: “the process involves removing personalized information while reserving statement main structural information, using techniques such as dependency grammar tagging and grammar back-tracing to presence meaningful relationships while eliminating noise. This improves the accuracy and efficiency of subsequent similarity matching”.
Respectfully these are not the criteria used in assessing “improve[ment]” according to the USPTO guidelines. The way to address “improvement” would have been how these added limitations might have helped in improving the performance of the associated additional elements which in this case are “one or more processors”. Please see (Enfish memorandum of 5/19/2016): “To make the determination of whether these claims are directed to an improvement in existing computer technology, the court looked to the teachings of the specification. Specifically, the court identified the specification’s teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements”; and/or “An “improvement in computer-related technology” is not limited to improvements in the operation of a computer or a computer network per se, but may also be claimed as a set of “rules” (basically mathematical relationships) that improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer” (MCRO memorandum of 11/2/2016).
On page 21 ¶ 2 lines 7+ it is recited: “The fact that the Examiner views these limitations as rendering the claims allowable under necessarily implies that they provide meaningful technical limitations that distinguish the claimed invention form the prior art and from routine conventional activities”.
Respectfully there appears to be a misunderstanding between what amounts to novelty versus subject matter eligibility. Some content may be determined novel, but may not be patent eligible. For example, a mathematician proving a theorem and/or an engineer or scientist deriving an equation certainly pass novelty test but they are not patent eligible as they are directed to “Mathematical Concepts”.
Finally on page 22 ¶ 3 it is recited: “The remaining pending dependent claims should also each be allowable by virtue of their dependency, either direct or indirect, on the allowable base claim as discussed above”.
Since applicants have not argued the merits of these dependent claims, but assert patentability solely through their dependence on the allegedly patentable parent claims, they stand or fall with said parent claims and hence no further response to applicant’s arguments is necessary.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities: “replacing all of the target words …with a predetermined identifier” appears to be a misspelling of “relacing each a predetermined identifier”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-11, 13-17, 19-20 stand rejected:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite
determination of “entity relationship” among entities in a “to-be-recognized text” (Sp. ¶ 0056 S1: “may be a historical work experience information text of company employees” “For example, if a relationship between an employee and a company is to be recognized”). It begins by “performing sentence segmentation on the to-be-recognized text” (Sp. ¶ 0069 S1: “the recognized text statement needs to contain entities of at least two target entity types”). It next “perform[s] entity recognition on the statement texts” in order “to obtain a target statement text” (“determining the statement text containing all the target entity types in all the recognized entity types as the target statement text” (claim 4 limitation 2); this seems that basically a “target statement” possesses all the identified “entity” “types”).
It next determines “a to-be-recognized fuzzy text” by “replacing” all the “entities” “with a predetermined identifier” and/or “vector” representation ( ¶ 0032: “transforming the to-be-recognized fuzzy text to a to-be-recognized fuzzy text vector, and transforming the example sentence fuzzy text to an example sentence fuzzy text vector”; Sp. ¶ 0080 lines 1+: “the target statement” “Li XX is an employee of Company A”, then “Li XX” gets replaced by “identifier” “[T]”; Sp. ¶ 0074 last 5 lines: “remov[ing] the personalized information in the target statement text and achieve the purpose of reserving the main structure information of the statement”; ¶ 0027: “determining a sentence trunk in the target statement text according to a dependency grammar tag, performing a grammar back-tracing operation on the target words not contained in the sentence trunk till determining that the target words are connected to a layer-by-layer correlation chain of the sentence trunk, and replacing a word not in the layer-by-layer correlation chain with a preset substitution identifier to obtain a first fuzzy text containing the sentence trunk”. It next obtains a “corresponding example sentence fuzzy text”. This is done by using sample “entity relationship example sentence text[s]” (i.e., example sentences) which are each associated with an “optional entity relationship” and also “replacing” their “entities” “with the predefined identifier” as well to obtain “a corresponding example sentence fuzzy text”. Based on a “text similarity” calculation between the “to-be-recognized fuzzy text” and “all” the “corresponding example sentence fuzzy text[s]”, one “corresponding” “example sentence” is “determined” and its associated “optional entity relationship” is determined as “an entity relationship recognition result of the to-be-recognized text”.
Other than recitation of “at least one processor” (claim 8) and “a processor” (claim 15), everything recited can be done by a human using a paper and a pen and/or through a set of preset rules; e.g., the human could take any “to-be-recognized text” and identify all entities and their types and segment it between occurrences of “entities” appearing in the “to-be-recognized text”. The use of “candidate entity relationships” associated with “entity relationship template sentence text” to probe “entity relationship” of the “to-be-recognized text” is something that is traced to the human’s past experience. For example, if there are two entities in the “to-be-recognized text”, one associated with an employee name and another one associated with a company, the “human” by experience with similar sentences he had encountered in the past (which basically amounts to a similarity calculation mentally (by the human’s brain) done with similar past encountered sentences) could determine the relationship to be an employee relationship between the two entities. The human could further convert each word of the “to-be-recognized-text” to a “vector” or mathematical representation (“fuzzy text”) format using a lookup table for a preferred text to vector transformation while maintaining the grammatical (i.e., word by word or layer by layer correlation) in the said effort to more efficiently detect similarities between e.g. entity words by simple mathematical differencing which are the back bone of determining entity relationships.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls withing the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 8 and 15 recite only one additional element, using a “processor” to perform the “acquiring …”, “performing entity recognition …” “replacing entities …” “acquiring all optional entity relationships …” “calculating a similarity …” “screening all entity relationship example sentences …” “determining a sentence trunk…”, “replacing all of the target words in the first fuzzy text …” “reserving only an entity type of an entity …” “reserving a non-entity word …. The “processor” is therefore recited at a high-level of generality without any specific constraints pertaining to any of the aforementioned processes, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are thus directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do 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 element of using a processor to perform all the above quoted limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and cannot therefore provide an inventive concept (SP. ¶ 0111 “The processor 10 is a Control Unit of the electronic device, which connects all components of the electronic device with various interfaces and lines, and executes various functions and processes data of the electronic device by running or executing programs or modules (such as entity relationship recognition programs) stored in the memory 11 and calling data stored in the memory 11” which defines a basic routine computer component or processor). The claims are thus not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-3, 9-10 and 16, when a composite sentence comprises of plurality of subject nouns each associated with distinct topics, this would result in a user segmenting the composite sentence between every two adjacent nouns. That only requires the human to possess basic knowledge of vocabulary and grammar in a language.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 17, recognition of entities of different types (e.g., person’s versus place name … etc.) in a sentence requires nothing beyond basic knowledge of vocabulary in a language.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, transforming sentences into predetermined vectors in order to do specific calculations does not require any particular machine, and can be done by a human using a lookup table.
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, the human reading the “to-be-recognized text” could readily determine all the entity relationships in the said text and summarize them and record them on a sheet of paper.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZAD KAZEMINEZHAD whose telephone number is (571)270-5860. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 am to 11:30 pm.
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, Paras D. Shah can be reached at (571) 270-1650. 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.
/Farzad Kazeminezhad/
Art Unit 2653
June 18th 2026.
Prosecution Insights