DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 04/05/2024. Claims 1-16 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 14, and 15 are independent claims.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-068776, filed on 04/19/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
Line 3 recites “evaluate similarity” where “evaluate a similarity” was apparently intended.
Line 11 recites “a result of evaluation of the similarity” where “a result of an evaluation of the similarity” was apparently intended.
Lines 11-12 recite “a result of evaluation of the state of variation” where “a result of an evaluation of the state of variation” was apparently intended.
Claim 2:
Line 2 improperly reintroduces the limitation “display information” (this same limitation was already recited in line 10 of parent claim 1).
Line 2 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a screen” (this same limitation was already recited in line 10 of parent claim 1).
Line 3 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a mode” (this same limitation was already recited in line 11 of parent claim 1).
Lines 3-4 recite “a result of application of the state of variation” where “a result of an application of the state of variation” was apparently intended.
Claim 4:
Line 2 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a result of evaluation of the state of variation” (this same limitation was already recited in lines 11-12 of parent claim 1).
Claim 5:
The numbering of claim 5 is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126. The presented claims must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented. A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n) and 37 CFR 1.75(g): “(t)he least restrictive claim should be presented as claim number 1, and all dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer…”
Line 5 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a rating” (this same limitation was already recited in line 3 of the same claim).
Lines 5-6 improperly reintroduce the limitation “a variation” (this same limitation was already recited in lines 3-4 of the same claim).
Claim 6:
Lines 3-4 improperly reintroduce the limitation “a state of variation” (this same limitation was already recited in lines 7-8 of parent claim 1).
Claim 7:
The numbering of claim 7 is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126. The presented claims must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented. A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n) and 37 CFR 1.75(g): “(t)he least restrictive claim should be presented as claim number 1, and all dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer…”
Line 4 improperly reintroduces the limitation “display information” (this same limitation was already recited in line 10 of parent claim 1).
Line 4 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a screen” (this same limitation was already recited in line 10 of parent claim 1).
Line 4 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a mode” (this same limitation was already recited in line 11 of parent claim 1).
Line 5 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a result of application of the state of variation” (this same limitation was already recited in lines 11-12 of parent claim 1).
Claim 8:
Line 3 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a state of variation” (this same limitation was already recited in lines 7-8 of parent claim 1).
Claim 9:
Lines 4-5 improperly reintroduce the limitation “a state of variation” (this same limitation was already recited in lines 7-8 of parent claim 1).
Claim 10:
The numbering of claim 10 is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126. The presented claims must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented. A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n) and 37 CFR 1.75(g): “(t)he least restrictive claim should be presented as claim number 1, and all dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer…”
Line 4 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a state of variation” (this same limitation was already recited in lines 7-8 of parent claim 1).
Line 8 improperly reintroduces the limitation “display information” (this same limitation was already recited in line 10 of parent claim 1).
Line 8 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a screen” (this same limitation was already recited in line 10 of parent claim 1).
Line 9 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a mode” (this same limitation was already recited in line 11 of parent claim 1).
Lines 9-10 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a result of application of the state of variation” (this same limitation was already recited in lines 11-12 of parent claim 1).
Claim 12:
Line 2 improperly reintroduces the limitation “information” (this same limitation was already recited in line 7 of parent claim 11).
Claim 13:
Line 2 improperly reintroduces the limitation “display information” (this same limitation was already recited in line 10 of parent claim 1).
Line 2 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a screen” (this same limitation was already recited in line 10 of parent claim 1).
Claim 14:
Line 3 recites “evaluate similarity” where “evaluate a similarity” was apparently intended.
Line 11 recites “a result of evaluation of the similarity” where “a result of an evaluation of the similarity” was apparently intended.
Lines 11-12 recite “a result of evaluation of the state of variation” where “a result of an evaluation of the state of variation” was apparently intended.
Claim 15:
Line 2 recites “evaluating similarity” where “evaluating a similarity” was apparently intended.
Line 10 recites “a result of evaluation of the similarity” where “a result of an evaluation of the similarity” was apparently intended.
Lines 10-11 recite “a result of evaluation of the state of variation” where “a result of an evaluation of the state of variation” was apparently intended.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. See, for example:
Claim 3:
The term “one or more high contribution rates” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term (and in particular, its “high” qualifier) is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, the claim is indefinite because whether or not something would qualify as being sufficiently “high” to be considered a “high contribution rate” is relative/subjective in nature.
Claim 10:
Line 2 recites “the input information includes the evaluation criterion for each type of data.” The notion/limitation “type of data” had no precedent/antecedent basis before this instance. Therefore, including “the evaluation criterion for each type of data” is indefinite because not only are the metes and bounds of “each type of data” unclear, but it is also unclear how “the evaluation criterion” fits into each of these indefinite instances.
Claim 11:
The term “a relatively low contribution rate” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term (and in particular, its “relatively low” qualifier) is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, the claim is indefinite because whether or not something would qualify as being sufficiently “relatively low” to be considered a “a relatively low contribution rate” is relative/subjective in nature. Dependent claim 12 inherits this issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Pub. No. 2017/0031904 (hereinafter “Legrand”).
As to claims 1, 15, and 16, Legrand shows an information processing apparatus [¶ 47], an information processing method [fig. 4], and a concomitant non-transitory recording medium [¶ 09], comprising:
circuitry [¶ 171] configured to:
evaluate similarity between first feature information and second feature information for each of multiple items of data, the first feature information indicating a feature of the data, the second feature information indicating a feature of a first character string designated in input information [a similarity (¶¶ 49-56 & 65) between first feature information (document embeddings/vectors | ¶¶ 30, 35, 49-56, & 84) and second feature information (embeddings/vectors of an inputted search string | ¶¶ 75-78) is evaluated for each of multiple items/collections of data/documents (¶ 50)];
evaluate, for a collection of data including the multiple items of data, a state of variation of the first feature information of the items of data belonging to the collection of data [a state of variation of the first feature information of the items of data belonging to the collection of data is evaluated for a collection of data including the multiple items of data (¶¶ 50, 99-101, & 153-159)]; and
generate display information of a screen that displays the collection of data in a mode based on a result of evaluation of the similarity and a result of evaluation of the state of variation [display information of a screen that displays the collection of data is generated in a mode based on a result of evaluation of the similarity and a result of evaluation of the state of variation (¶¶ 08, 140-144, & 198)].
As to dependent claim 2, Legrand further shows:
the circuitry is configured to generate display information of a screen that displays the collection of data in a mode based on the result of evaluation of the similarity and a result of application of the state of variation of the first feature information to an evaluation criterion for the state of variation, the evaluation criterion for the state of variation being designated in the input information [other display information of another screen that displays the collection of data in another mode is generated based on the result of evaluation of the similarity and a result of an application of the state of variation of the first feature information to an evaluation criterion for the state of variation, the evaluation criterion for the state of variation being designated in the input information (e.g. a constraint and/or a refinement applied along with the input information/query) | ¶¶ 31, 59-63, 75-78, 99-101, & 108-112].
As to dependent claim 3, Legrand further shows:
the circuitry is configured to evaluate the state of variation, based on contribution rates of principal components obtained from principal component analysis of the first feature information of the items of data belonging to the collection of data and a threshold for a cumulative value of one or more high contribution rates among the contribution rates [the state of variation is evaluated based on contribution rates of principal components (like common concepts, similarities, and/or distances) obtained from principal component analysis of the first feature information of the items of data belonging to the collection of data and a threshold for a cumulative value of one or more contribution rates among the contribution rates (like the most similar search results meeting a minimum relevancy cutoff) being met or exceeded | ¶¶ 31, 59-63, 75-78, 99-101, & 108-112].
As to dependent claim 4, Legrand further shows:
the circuitry is configured to acquire a result of evaluation of the state of variation before the input information is input, in accordance with preset information [the result of the evaluation of the state of variation may be acquired before the input information is input in accordance with preset information at least in the sense that the constraint may be input at any point throughout the search and searching entails an iterative process wherein a user can continue building upon prior searches (¶¶ 50, 99-101, & 153-159)].
As to dependent claim 5, Legrand further shows:
the evaluation criterion for the state of variation includes any one of: assigning a rating to the state of variation such that the rating increases as a variation increases; assigning a rating to the state of variation such that the rating increases as a variation decreases; and assigning no rating to the state of variation [the evaluation criterion for the state of variation includes any one of: assigning a rating/feedback to the state of variation such that the rating increases as a variation increases; assigning a rating/feedback to the state of variation such that the rating increases as a variation decreases; and/or assigning no rating/feedback to the state of variation (¶¶ 30, 108-109, 122, 128, & 146-148)].
As to dependent claim 6, Legrand further shows:
the input information includes a second character string, and the circuitry is configured to evaluate, for the first feature information, a state of variation for a feature of the second character string [further text searches/refinements may be input, and the state of variation for an feature/embedding/vector of these further text searches/refinements may also be evaluated | ¶¶ 75-78, 146-148, & 269].
As to dependent claim 7, Legrand further shows:
the circuitry is configured to, in response to a change of the evaluation criterion to another evaluation criterion after generation of the display information of the screen, generate display information of a screen that displays the collection of data in a mode based on the result of evaluation of the similarity and a result of application of the state of variation of the first feature information to said another evaluation criterion [in response to a change of the evaluation criterion (e.g. a first constraint and/or a refinement applied along with the first input information/query) to another evaluation criterion after generation of the display information of the screen (e.g. a subsequent constraint and/or refinement), display information of a screen that displays the collection of data in a mode is generated based on the result of evaluation of the similarity and a result of application of the state of variation of the first feature information to said another evaluation criterion | ¶¶ 31, 59-63, 75-78, 99-101, & 108-112].
As to dependent claim 8, Legrand further shows:
the input information includes a third character string, and the circuitry is configured to evaluate a state of variation of the first feature information in a case where a feature of the third character string is removed [further text searches/refinements may be input, and the state of variation for an feature/embedding/vector of these further text searches/refinements may also be evaluated (¶¶ 75-78, 128, 146-148, & 269) in a case where a feature of the third character string is removed (¶¶ 88, 93, 154-159, 191, & 198)].
As to dependent claim 9, Legrand further shows:
the input information includes a second character string and a third character string, and the circuitry is configured to evaluate, for the first feature information, a state of variation for a feature of the second character string in a case where a feature of the third character string is removed [further text searches/refinements may be input, and the state of variation for an feature/embedding/vector of these further text searches/refinements may also be evaluated (¶¶ 75-78, 128, 146-148, & 269) in a case where a feature of the third character string is removed (¶¶ 88, 93, 154-159, 191, & 198)].
As to dependent claim 10, Legrand further shows:
the input information includes the evaluation criterion for each type of data [the input information may include the evaluation criterion/constraint/refinement for each type of data (¶¶ 31, 59-63, 75-78, 99-101, & 108-112)], and
the circuitry is configured to: evaluate, for each of multiple collections of data, a state of variation of the first feature information for each of types of data belonging to the collection of data, the multiple collections of data including the collection of data including the multiple items of data [for each of multiple collections of data (like collections of documents resulting from a query | ¶¶ 28-31), a state of variation of the first feature information may be evaluated for each of types of data belonging to the collection of data (¶¶ 50, 99-101, & 153-159)]; and
generate display information of a screen that displays the multiple collections of data in a mode based on the result of evaluation of the similarity and a result of application of the state of variation of the first feature information for each of the types of the data to the evaluation criterion for the type of the data [display information of a screen that displays the multiple collections of data is generated in a mode based on a result of evaluation of the similarity and a result of application of the state of variation of the first feature information for each of the types of the data to the evaluation criterion for the type of the data (¶¶ 08, 140-144, & 198)].
As to dependent claim 11, Legrand further shows:
the circuitry is configured to: collect data based on a principal component having a relatively low contribution rate among principal components obtained from principal component analysis of the first feature information of the items of data belonging to one or more of the collections of data [data may be collected based on a principal component (like common concepts, similarities, and/or distances) having a relatively low contribution rate among principal components obtained from principal component analysis of the first feature information of the items of data belonging to one or more of the collections of data (like which documents to leave out of the search results based on unrelated concepts, marked dissimilarities, and/or significant distances) | ¶¶ 31, 59-63, 75-78, 99-101, & 108-112]; and
output information related to the collected data [information related to the collected data may be output (figs. 9-13; ¶¶ 08, 140-144, & 198)].
As to dependent claim 12, Legrand further shows:
the circuitry is configured to output information that prompts purchase of a book related to the data collected based on the principal component having the relatively low contribution rate [information that prompts purchase of a book related to the data collected based on the principal component having a determined contribution rate may be output (¶¶ 22, 31, 200, 211-212, & 235-239)].
As to dependent claim 13, Legrand further shows:
the circuitry is configured to generate display information of a screen indicating the state of variation [display information of a screen may be generated indicating the state of variation (¶¶ 08, 140-144, & 198)].
As to independent claim 14, Legrand shows an information processing system [¶ 47] comprising:
circuitry [¶ 171] configured to:
evaluate similarity between first feature information and second feature information for each of multiple items of data, the first feature information indicating a feature of the data, the second feature information indicating a feature of a first character string designated in input information [a similarity (¶¶ 49-56 & 65) between first feature information (document embeddings/vectors | ¶¶ 30, 35, 49-56, & 84) and second feature information (embeddings/vectors of an inputted search string | ¶¶ 75-78) is evaluated for each of multiple items/collections of data/documents (¶ 50)];
evaluate, for a collection of data including the multiple items of data, a state of variation of the first feature information of the items of data belonging to the collection of data [a state of variation of the first feature information of the items of data belonging to the collection of data is evaluated for a collection of data including the multiple items of data (¶¶ 50, 99-101, & 153-159)]; and
cause a display to display a screen that displays the collection of data in a mode based on a result of evaluation of the similarity and a result of evaluation of the state of variation [a screen that displays the collection of data in a mode based on a result of evaluation of the similarity and a result of evaluation of the state of variation may be displayed (¶¶ 08, 140-144, & 198)].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Inventor
Document ID
Relevance
Duffy; Nigel
US 20150331908 A1
“evaluate similarity between first feature information and second feature information for each of multiple items of data, the first feature information indicating a feature of the data, the second feature information indicating a feature of a first character string designated in input information”
Nahamoo; David et al.
US 20210406264 A1
“evaluate similarity between first feature information and second feature information for each of multiple items of data, the first feature information indicating a feature of the data, the second feature information indicating a feature of a first character string designated in input information”
Kandekar; Kunal et al.
US 20120079372 A1
“evaluate similarity between first feature information and second feature information for each of multiple items of data, the first feature information indicating a feature of the data, the second feature information indicating a feature of a first character string designated in input information”
BEN SHAUL; Ido et al.
US 20240086460 A1
“evaluate similarity between first feature information and second feature information for each of multiple items of data, the first feature information indicating a feature of the data, the second feature information indicating a feature of a first character string designated in input information”
Legrand; Diego Guy M. et al.
US 20170091319 A1
“evaluate similarity between first feature information and second feature information for each of multiple items of data, the first feature information indicating a feature of the data, the second feature information indicating a feature of a first character string designated in input information”
Ramamurthy; Vivek et al.
US 20170039198 A1
“evaluate similarity between first feature information and second feature information for each of multiple items of data, the first feature information indicating a feature of the data, the second feature information indicating a feature of a first character string designated in input information”
SEVERN; Robert et al.
US 20180329990 A1
“evaluate similarity between first feature information and second feature information for each of multiple items of data, the first feature information indicating a feature of the data, the second feature information indicating a feature of a first character string designated in input information”
Hussain; Amjad et al.
US 20200081913 A1
“evaluate similarity between first feature information and second feature information for each of multiple items of data, the first feature information indicating a feature of the data, the second feature information indicating a feature of a first character string designated in input information”
GOKHAN; Nuri Mehmet et al.
US 20220237239 A1
“evaluate similarity between first feature information and second feature information for each of multiple items of data, the first feature information indicating a feature of the data, the second feature information indicating a feature of a first character string designated in input information”
Bates; Keith M. et al.
US 20110010307 A1
“evaluate similarity between first feature information and second feature information for each of multiple items of data, the first feature information indicating a feature of the data, the second feature information indicating a feature of a first character string designated in input information”
Thaine; Patricia Araujo et al.
US 11461551 B1
“evaluate similarity between first feature information and second feature information for each of multiple items of data, the first feature information indicating a feature of the data, the second feature information indicating a feature of a first character string designated in input information”
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO R CALDERON IV whose telephone number is (571) 272-1818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:30am - 5pm).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/ALVARO R CALDERON IV/
Examiner, Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights