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. CN202210102790.9, filed on 01/27/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2024 is considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on 04/18/2024 is considered by the examiner.
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 and 21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims1 and 21, recites “acquiring a topic text to be classified and tag description information of at least one topic tag to be predicted; extracting a target text feature of the topic text to be classified, and extracting a tag description feature of the tag description information of each topic tag to be predicted; determining a tag correlation between the target text feature and each tag description feature to obtain at least one tag correlation; and determining a target topic tag matching with the topic text to be classified from the at least one topic tag to be predicted based on the at least one tag correlation.”
The claim limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest
reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For
example, a user, while reading an article text, mentally collects important words and context/topic from the subject article and then correlates/matches important words and context/topic of the subject article with context/topic of another specific subject article from knowledge to predict a book title related to the article.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the
claim(s) does/do not recite any additional elements that would impose meaningful limits
on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is thus directed to an abstract idea.
Event when considered in combination, the claim as a whole does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) since there are no additional element or combination of additional elements adds concept to the claims (See MPEP 2106.05). The claim is ineligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2 which depends on claim 1, recites additional elements “wherein the target text feature includes a plurality of sub-text features, and each of the plurality of sub-text features corresponds to each first unit text in the topic text to be classified; and the determining the tag correlation between the target text feature and each tag description feature comprises: determining a correlation coefficient of each first unit text based on the target text feature and the tag description feature, the correlation coefficient being used to represent a tag correlation degree between the first unit text and the corresponding topic tag to be predicted; and based on the correlation coefficient of each first unit text, performing weighted summation calculation on the sub-text features of respective first unit texts, and determining the tag correlation according to a calculation result.” This additional elements when considered claim as a whole, provides meaningful limitations resulted the analysis into a specific and tangible method and integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05 (e), Although the analysis step was an abstract mental process that collected and compared known information, the immunization step was meaningful because it integrated the results of the analysis into a specific and tangible method that resulted in the method "moving from abstract scientific principle to specific application." 659 F.3d at 1066-68; 100 USPQ2d at 1500-01. Thus, the dependent claim 2 is patent eligible.
With respect to claims 3-7, which chronologically depends on claim 2 are as well patent eligible.
With respect to claim 9 which depends on claim 1, recites additional elements “wherein the extracting a target text feature of the topic text to be classified, and the extracting a tag description feature of the tag description information of each topic tag to be predicted comprise: extracting the target text feature of the topic text to be classified through a feature extraction layer in a text classification model, and extracting the tag description feature of the tag description information of each topic tag to be predicted; the determining a tag correlation between the target text feature and each tag description feature to obtain at least one tag correlation comprises: determining the tag correlation between the target text feature and each tag description feature through a correlation determination layer in the text classification model to obtain the at least one tag correlation; and the determining a target topic tag matching with the topic text to be classified from the at least one topic tag to be predicted based on the at least one tag correlation comprises: determining the target topic tag matching with the topic text to be classified from the at least one topic tag to be predicted based on the at least one tag correlation through a classification layer in the text classification model.” This additional elements when considered claim as a whole, provides meaningful limitations resulted the analysis into a specific and tangible method and integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05 (e), Although the analysis step was an abstract mental process that collected and compared known information, the immunization step was meaningful because it integrated the results of the analysis into a specific and tangible method that resulted in the method "moving from abstract scientific principle to specific application." 659 F.3d at 1066-68; 100 USPQ2d at 1500-01. Thus, the dependent claim 9, is patent eligible.
With respect to claims 10-11, which chronologically depends on claim 9, and thus patent eligible.
With respect to Independent Claim 12, which, recites “displaying a topic text operation page; receiving target data input by a user on the operation page, the target data comprising a topic text to be published or topic tags of interest; acquiring a filtering result determined by a server based on the target data, the filtering result being obtained through the server filtering the data to be filtered, that is determined based on the target data, by using the text classification method according to claim 1; and displaying the target data and/or the filtering result of the target data on the operation page.”
The claim limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest
reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For
example, a user, while reading an article text, mentally identify portion of the article to collect important words and context/topic from the subject portion of the article and then correlates/matches important words and context/topic of the subject article with context/topic of another specific subject article from knowledge to predict the book of the article and displaying a book title related to the portion of the article.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim only recites only the additional elements” filtering result determined by a server”. The limitation amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further using a server for processing method steps similarly courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. See MPEP 2106.05(a),I, iii, as “Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential)”.
Therefor claim(s) 12, does not recite any additional elements that would impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is thus directed to an abstract idea.
Event when viewed in combination, this additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and thus do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) since there are no additional element or combination of additional elements adds concept to the claims (See MPEP 2106.05). The claim is patent ineligible.
With respect to claims 13, which depends on claim 12, recites additional elements “wherein the target data include the topic text to be published; and the displaying the target data and/or the filtering result of the target data on the operation page comprises: displaying the topic text to be published at a first display position of the operation page; and displaying a publishing type of the topic text to be published and/or at least one target topic tag matching with the topic text to be published at a second display position of the operation page.”, which similarly can be manually process by displaying book title and book title matching context/topic in a two different portion of a page. The claim thus falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because when considered claim as a whole, this additional elements did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea or add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05 (e), In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality. 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85. The claim is not patent ineligible.
With respect to claim 14, which depends on claim 13, recites the additional elements “detecting a trigger operation of the user on a tag modification identifier of the target topic tag displayed on the operation page, performing a modification operation matching with the tag modification identifier triggered by the user on the target topic tag, and displaying a modified target topic tag on the operation page, wherein the modification operation comprises at least one of the following: adding, deleting and modifying.”, can be manually perform from the displayed book title and context/topic in two separate portion of the page. This additional elements thus did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea or add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05 (e), In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality. 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85. The claim is not patent ineligible.
With respect to claim 15, which depends on claim 12, recites additional elements “wherein the target data include the topic tags of interest, and the method further comprises: detecting whether a tag quantity of the topic tags of interest exceeds a preset number after receiving the topic tags of interest input by the user on the operation page; and displaying a prompt message in a case where the tag quantity exceeds the preset number, the prompt message being used to indicate that the quantity of the topic tags of interest has reached the preset number.” This additional elements when considered claim as a whole, provides meaningful limitations resulted the analysis into a specific and tangible method and integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05 (e), Although the analysis step was an abstract mental process that collected and compared known information, the immunization step was meaningful because it integrated the results of the analysis into a specific and tangible method that resulted in the method "moving from abstract scientific principle to specific application." 659 F.3d at 1066-68; 100 USPQ2d at 1500-01. Thus, the dependent claim 15, is patent eligible.
With respect to claim 16, which depends on claim 12, recites additional elements “wherein the target data include the topic tags of interest, and the displaying a topic text operation page comprises: acquiring a preset topic tag belonging to at least one target topic category in response to a topic filtering request of the user; and determining a category display area of each target topic category on the operation page, and displaying a corresponding target topic category and the preset topic tag belonging to the target topic category in the category display area.” This additional elements when considered claim as a whole, provides meaningful limitations resulted the analysis into a specific and tangible method and integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05 (e), Although the analysis step was an abstract mental process that collected and compared known information, the immunization step was meaningful because it integrated the results of the analysis into a specific and tangible method that resulted in the method "moving from abstract scientific principle to specific application." 659 F.3d at 1066-68; 100 USPQ2d at 1500-01. Thus, the dependent claim 16, is patent eligible.
With respect to claim 17, which depends on claim 12, recites additional elements, “wherein the target data include the topic tags of interest; and the displaying the target data and/or the filtering result of the target data on the operation page comprises: displaying the topic tags of interest in a title display area of the operation page; and displaying a key topic content of a published topic text matching with each topic tag of interest in a text display area of the operation page.” This additional elements when considered claim as a whole, provides meaningful limitations resulted the analysis into a specific and tangible method and integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05 (e), Although the analysis step was an abstract mental process that collected and compared known information, the immunization step was meaningful because it integrated the results of the analysis into a specific and tangible method that resulted in the method "moving from abstract scientific principle to specific application." 659 F.3d at 1066-68; 100 USPQ2d at 1500-01. Thus, the dependent claim 17, is patent eligible.
With respect to Claim 18, which depends on claim 17, and thus patent eligible.
With respect to claim 19 and 20, which recites process/functionality for text classification from at least one topic tag to be predicted based on an one tag correlation. This process does not involve human activity since the process improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, and cannot reasonably be performed by a human in the mind (See [0024] a first display unit configured to display a topic text operation page; a receiving unit configured to receive target data input by a user on the operation page, the target data including a topic text to be published or topic tags of interest; and for claim 19, a CNN model describe from [00113-0129] where text classification model includes a feature extraction network, a fusion layer and a classification layer (i.e., a dichotomy layer), the feature extraction network includes an input layer, an embedding layer and a feature extraction layer.) . Also see MPEP 2106.05(a), “For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01.”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a first acquisition unit, an extraction unit, first determination unit and a second determination unit, in claim 19; a receiving unit a second acquisition unit, in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 12, and 21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Indenbom (US 2019/0392035 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Indenbom teaches: A text classification method which is applied to a server, comprising (0032] Thus, the present disclosure improves the efficiency and quality of information extraction by providing classification systems and methods that utilize local and non-local features for information extraction. Systems and methods described herein may be implemented by hardware (e.g., general purpose and/or specialized processing devices, and/or other devices and associated circuitry), software (e.g., instructions executable by a processing device), or a combination thereof. Various aspects of the above referenced methods and systems are described in detail herein below by way of examples, rather than by way of limitation.): acquiring a topic text (input documents containing a natural language text) to be classified and tag description information (text segment) of at least one topic tag (object category) to be predicted (0034] At block 110, the computer system implementing method 100 may receive one or more input documents containing a natural language text. [0035] At block 120, the computer system may identify a plurality of text segments in the natural language text.); extracting a target text feature (local features associated with the candidate token or a subset of the most informative features) of the topic text to be classified ([0055] At blocks 150-160, the computer system may iterate through at least a subset of candidate tokens of the natural language text in order to identify the category of the information object referenced each candidate token. In particular, at block 150, the computer system may analyze the natural language text to extract, from the local context of each candidate token, a plurality of local features associated with the candidate token. The local context may include various combinations of neighbors of the candidate token. [0057] The extracted classification features of the candidate token may include semantic class identifiers associated with the local context of the candidate token,… In certain implementations, the initial set of classification features may be processed in order to identify a subset of the most informative features, based on one or more statistical criteria which evaluate the ability of a classifier model to produce the most number of correct outputs based on the subset of features being evaluated.), and extracting a tag description feature (extracted text segment features) of the tag description information of each topic tag to be predicted([0036] At block 130, the computer system may, for each identified document segment, extract a plurality of classification features associated with the segment. In an illustrative example, the features may include a “bag of words,” i.e., an unordered or arbitrarily ordered set of words contained by the text segment. [0050] At block 140, the computer system may, for each identified document segment, process the extracted text segment features by one or more stage one classifiers, such that each stage one classifier yields the degree of association of the text segment with a certain information object category. The computer system may then associate the text segments with one or more tags corresponding to the information object categories for which the degree of association produced by the respective classifier exceeds a pre-defined threshold value. [0053] Accordingly, in an illustrative example, the output of operations referenced by block 140 may be represented, for each text segment, by one or more tags associated with the text segment. In another illustrative example, the output of operations referenced by block 140 may be represented, for each text segment, by one or more values reflecting the degree of association of the text segment with a corresponding segment category.); determining a tag correlation (degree of association) between the target text feature and each tag description feature (combination of the extracted local features and text segment tags yield the degree of association of the candidate token with a certain information object category) to obtain at least one tag correlation ([0058] At block 160, the computer system may employ one or more stage two classifiers to process the combination of the extracted local features and text segment tags produced by operations of block 140 for the text segment in which the candidate token is found. Each stage two classifier may yield the degree of association of the candidate token with a certain information object category. The computer system may then associate the candidate token with the information object categories for which the degree of association produced by the respective stage two classifier exceeds a pre-defined threshold value.); and determining a target topic tag (a category of named entities) matching with the topic text to be classified from the at least one topic tag to be predicted based on the at least one tag correlation ([0060] In certain implementations, the computer system may represent the extracted information objects and their attributes by an (Resource Description Framework) RDF graph. In an illustrative example, an SPO triplet may associate a natural language text fragment with a category of named entities. [0062] At block 170, the computer system may utilize the extracted information objects for performing various natural language processing tasks, such as machine translation, semantic search, document classification, clustering, text filtering, etc. Responsive to completing the operations described with references to block 170, the method may terminate.).
Regarding Claim 12, Indenbom teaches: A text processing method which is applied to a terminal device, comprising: displaying a topic text operation page; receiving target data input by a user on the operation page, the target data comprising a topic text to be published or topic tags of interest (See rejection of claim 1 and [0061] In certain implementations, the computer system may display the extracted information objects in visual association with the respective textual annotations. The computer system may further accept the user input confirming or modifying the extracted information objects and/or their attributes. In certain implementations, the user input may be utilized for updating the training data set that is employed for adjusting classifier parameters.); acquiring a filtering result determined by a server based on the target data, the filtering result being obtained through the server filtering the data to be filtered, that is determined based on the target data, by using the text classification method according to claim 1 and displaying the target data and/or the filtering result of the target data on the operation page (See rejection of claim 1 and [0060] In certain implementations, the computer system may represent the extracted information objects and their attributes by an (Resource Description Framework) RDF graph. In an illustrative example, an SPO triplet may associate a natural language text fragment with a category of named entities. [0062] At block 170, the computer system may utilize the extracted information objects for performing various natural language processing tasks, such as machine translation, semantic search, document classification, clustering, text filtering, etc. Responsive to completing the operations described with references to block 170, the method may terminate. [0122] The computer system may operate in the capacity of a server or a client computer system in client-server network environment, or as a peer computer system in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment.).
Regarding Claim 21, Indenbom teaches: A computer device, comprising a processor, a memory and a bus, wherein the memory stores machine-readable instructions executable by the processor; when the computer device runs, the processor communicates with the memory through the bus; and the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor ([0125] Computer system 1000 may further include a network interface device 522, a video display unit 510, a character input device 512 (e.g., a keyboard), and a touch screen input device 514. [0126] Data storage device 518 may include a computer-readable storage medium 524 on which is stored one or more sets of instructions 526 embodying any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein. Instructions 526 may also reside, completely or at least partially, within main memory 504 and/or within processor 502 during execution thereof by computer system 1000, main memory 504 and processor 502 also constituting computer-readable storage media. Instructions 526 may further be transmitted or received over network 516 via network interface device 522.) to perform the steps of the text classification method according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 19 and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Indenbom .
Regarding Claim 19, Indenbom teaches: A text classification apparatus which is applied to a server, comprising: a first acquisition unit configured to acquire a topic text to be classified and tag description information of at least one topic tag to be predicted; an extraction unit configured to extract a target text feature of the topic text to be classified and extract a tag description feature of the tag description information of each topic tag to be predicted; a first determination unit configured to determine a tag correlation between the target text feature and each tag description feature to obtain at least one tag correlation; and a second determination unit configured to determine a target topic tag matching with the topic text to be classified from the at least one topic tag to be predicted based on the at least one tag correlation (See rejection of claim 1).
Indenbom does not specifically teach, a first acquisition unit, an extraction unit first determination unit and a second determination unit to perform the above steps of claim 19.
However, Indenbom teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches, components, and features may be implemented by firmware modules or functional circuitry within hardware device ([0122] The computer system may operate in the capacity of a server or a client computer system in client-server network environment, or as a peer computer system in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment. The computer system may be a provided by a personal computer (PC), a tablet PC, a set-top box (STB), a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), a cellular telephone, or any computer system capable of executing a set of instructions (sequential or otherwise) that specify operations to be performed by that computer system. [0125] Computer system 1000 may further include a network interface device 522, a video display unit 510, a character input device 512 (e.g., a keyboard), and a touch screen input device 514. [0128] The methods, components, and features described herein may be implemented by discrete hardware components or may be integrated in the functionality of other hardware components such as ASICS, FPGAs, DSPs or similar devices. In addition, the methods, components, and features may be implemented by firmware modules or functional circuitry within hardware devices. Further, the methods, components, and features may be implemented in any combination of hardware devices and software components, or only in software.).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the claimed elements (a first acquisition unit, an extraction unit first determination unit and a second determination unit ) to the prior art device (discrete hardware components) for improvement and the results (utilize the extracted information objects for performing various natural language processing tasks, such as machine translation, semantic search, document classification, clustering, text filtering, etc.) would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (Applying a Known Technique to a Known Device (Method, or Product) Ready for Improvement To Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding Claim 20, Indenbom teaches: A text processing apparatus which is applied to a terminal device, comprising: a first display unit configured to display a topic text operation page (display the extracted information objects in visual association with the respective textual annotations); a receiving unit configured to receive target data input by a user on the operation page, the target data comprising a topic text to be published or topic tags of interest(See rejection of claim 1 and [0060] In certain implementations, the computer system may represent the extracted information objects and their attributes by an (Resource Description Framework) RDF graph. In an illustrative example, an SPO triplet may associate a natural language text fragment with a category of named entities. [0061] In certain implementations, the computer system may display the extracted information objects in visual association with the respective textual annotations. The computer system may further accept the user input confirming or modifying the extracted information objects and/or their attributes. In certain implementations, the user input may be utilized for updating the training data set that is employed for adjusting classifier parameters. [0125] Computer system 1000 may further include a network interface device 522, a video display unit 510, a character input device 512 (e.g., a keyboard), and a touch screen input device 514.); a second acquisition unit configured to acquire a filtering result (classification) determined by a server based on the target data, the filtering result being obtained through the server filtering the data to be filtered, that is determined based on the target data, by using the text classification method according to claim 1; and a second display unit configured to display the target data and/or the filtering result of the target data on the operation page(See rejection of claim 1 and [0061] In certain implementations, the computer system may display the extracted information objects in visual association with the respective textual annotations. The computer system may further accept the user input confirming or modifying the extracted information objects and/or their attributes. In certain implementations, the user input may be utilized for updating the training data set that is employed for adjusting classifier parameters. [0062] At block 170, the computer system may utilize the extracted information objects for performing various natural language processing tasks, such as machine translation, semantic search, document classification, clustering, text filtering, etc. Responsive to completing the operations described with references to block 170, the method may terminate. [0122] The computer system may operate in the capacity of a server or a client computer system in client-server network environment, or as a peer computer system in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment.).
Indenbom does not teach: a first display unit, a receiving unit, a second acquisition unit, a second display unit.
However, Indenbom teaches, [0125] Computer system 1000 may further include a network interface device 522, a video display unit 510, a character input device 512 (e.g., a keyboard), and a touch screen input device 514. [0128] The methods, components, and features described herein may be implemented by discrete hardware components or may be integrated in the functionality of other hardware components such as ASICS, FPGAs, DSPs or similar devices. In addition, the methods, components, and features may be implemented by firmware modules or functional circuitry within hardware devices. Further, the methods, components, and features may be implemented in any combination of hardware devices and software components, or only in software.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the claimed elements (a first display unit, a receiving unit, a second acquisition unit, a second display unit) to the prior art device (discrete hardware components and display unit) for improvement and the results (utilize the extracted information objects for performing various natural language processing tasks, such as machine translation, semantic search, document classification, clustering, text filtering, etc.) would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (Applying a Known Technique to a Known Device (Method, or Product) Ready for Improvement To Yield Predictable Results).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 9-11, and 13-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art of records Wang(US 2014/0379719 A1) teach: System And Method For Tagging And Searching Documents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, EST (IFP).
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 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2653