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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 18, line 1; “non-transient” should be changed to: -- non-transitory --
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.
1. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 12, 13, 15 & 16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
2. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the analysis" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
3. Claim 3 recites the limitation "a plurality" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
4. Claim 3 recites the limitation "a plurality" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
5. Claim 3 recites the limitation "a plurality" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
6. Claim 4 recites the limitation "a plurality" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
7. Claim 5 recites the limitation "a second" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
8. Claim 7 recites the limitation "and second reference data" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
9. Claim 7 recites the limitation "of second reference data" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
10. Claim 12 recites the limitation "a plurality" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
11. Claim 12 recites the limitation "a plurality" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
12. Claim 12 recites the limitation "a plurality" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
13. Claim 13 recites the limitation "a plurality" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
14. Claim 13 recites the limitation "a plurality" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
15. Claim 13 recites the limitation "of all devices" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
16. Claim 15 recites the limitation "a plurality" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
17. Claim 16 recites the limitation "of second reference data" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
1. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without reciting significantly more than the exception.
Regarding claim 1; the claim recites generation method for sample data, comprising:
a) acquiring first reference data, wherein the first reference data comprises target information matching a target information type, and the target information type is a preset information type with a security requirement;
b) performing analysis processing on the target information in the first reference data to generate an analysis result corresponding to the target information, wherein the analysis processing comprises semantic analysis, lexical structure analysis and grammatical structure analysis;
c) generating a plurality of positive sample information and a plurality of negative sample information based on the analysis result corresponding to the target information; and
d) generating a sample data set comprising positive sample data and negative sample data based on the plurality of positive sample information, the plurality of negative sample information, and second reference data.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a generation method for sample data. Thus, the claim is a process which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. From the claimed language, the broadest reasonable interpretation of steps a-d fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Specifically:
Step a can be performed by a human as the human (lets’ say Bob) can acquire and detect a voice uttered by an another person (let’s call him John).
Step b can be performed by a human as Bob can listen to the spoken sentences from the John and based on what he heard, he can analyze the sentences and decides whether they were spoken correctly
Step c can be done by a human, as Bob can determine can separate which sentence was spoken with correct grammar and which one was not
Step d can be done by a human, as Bob can use those sentences as samples for other students in the class.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 1 does not recite anything additionally. Hence, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As discussed above the claim does not recite any additional element sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, there are no additional element. (step 2B, No). The claim is not patent eligible.
2. Claims 2-9 depend on indicated rejected claim 1. Therefore, by virtue of their dependency, Claims 2-9 are also indicated as rejected subject matter.
3. Regarding claim 10, the claim recites a computer device and the additional elements of processor, memory and bus for carrying out the method, so the claim only recites generic computer component and is recited at a high level of generality. Thus, the computer device is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed similarly in claim 1 above, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, it should be rejected similarly.
4. Claims 11-17 depend on indicated rejected claim 10. Therefore, by virtue of their dependency, Claims 11-17 are also indicated as rejected subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS T. RILEY, ESQ. whose telephone number is (571)270-1581. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F.
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, Hai Phan can be reached at 571-272-6338. 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.
MARCUS T. RILEY, ESQ.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2654
/MARCUS T RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654