DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to output outputs the degree of certainty determined based on the conversion score” is grammatically incoherent and should be replaced with “wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to output the degree of certainty determined based on the conversion score”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims (1-17), (18), and (19) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A prong 1), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2). If an abstract idea is present in the claim without integration into a practical application, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (step 2B).
In the instant case, claims (1-17), (18), and (19) are directed to an information processing apparatus, information processing method, and computer program product respectively. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. However, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the test is to identify whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception. The examiner notes that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to mental processes, specifically computing scores.
The examiner further notes that claims (1-17), (18), and (19) recite an information processing apparatus, information processing method, and computer program product for computing scores which is similar to themes defined above of method of mental processes such as performing the recommendation of information, and is similar to the abstract idea identified in the 2019 PEG in grouping “c” in that the claims recite certain methods of mental processes such as performing the computing of scores. The limitations, substantially comprising the body of the claim, recite a process of computing scores. The examiner notes that the claimed computes scores. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps in computing scores, and the steps of the claims involve mental processes, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG.
Claim 1:
An information processing apparatus comprising one or more hardware processors configured to: calculate a degree of certainty expressed by a discrete value for each of one or more phrases included in a search criterion, the search criterion including the one or more phrases and one or more logical operators, the degree of certainty representing certainty of correlation between each of pieces of target information to be searched for and the one or more phrases;
calculate a score for each of the one or more phrases, the score being a continuous value obtained by converting degrees of similarity between the pieces of target information and the one or more phrases, the score being calculated such that the degrees of similarity fa ll within a range determined for the degree of certainty; and
convert the score calculated for each of the one or more phrases into a conversion score in accordance with a conversion method determined for each of the one or more logical operators.
These limitations, as drafted, is an apparatus that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of mental processes specifically computing scores. Computing scores has long before the modern computer was invented, and continues to be predominantly a product of human endeavor. The instant application is directed to computing scores. Additionally, the calculation of a degree of certainty can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the calculation of a scores can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, the conversion of a score can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of computing scores, and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or pen & paper, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG.
The mere nominal recitation of generic computing components such as one or more hardware processors does not take the claim out of certain methods of mental processes grouping. Therefore, the limitation is directed to an abstract idea.
If the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to an apparatus instructing the reader to implement the identified apparatus of mental processes of computing scores. The elements of the claim do not themselves amount to an improvement to the computer, to a technology or another technical field.
Here, the claim elements entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (see at least 84 Fed. Reg. (4) at 55). Under the 2019 PEG, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claim 1 does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible.
With respect to the dependent claims do not recite anything that is found to render the abstract idea as being transformed into a patent eligible invention. The dependent claims are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not claim anything that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to the dependent claims, they have been considered and are not found to be reciting anything that amounts to being significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-17 are directed to further embellishments of the central theme of the abstract idea in that the claims are directed to further embellishments of the computing scores of the steps of claim 1 and do not amount to significantly more.
Specifically, claim 2 is directed towards the use of a ranking and determination information in the calculation which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, claim 3 is directed towards the use of a ration and defined determination information which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Moreover, claim 4 is directed towards the use of a ranking and determination information in the calculation which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally, claim 5 is directed towards the calculation of a value which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, claim 6 is directed towards the calculation of a value via a conversion which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Moreover, claim 7 is directed towards the calculation of a value which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally, claim 8 is directed towards the calculation of a value which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, claim 9 is directed towards the calculation of a value which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Moreover, claim 10 is directed towards the calculation of a value which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally, claim 11 is directed towards the calculation of a value which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, claim 12 is directed towards the output of target information which is a mere data output operation that is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Moreover, claim 13 is directed towards the output of degree of certainty which is a mere data output operation that is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 14 is directed towards the generation of search criterion which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of generic computing components such an input screen does not take the claim out of certain methods of mental processes grouping. Therefore, the limitation is directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, claim 15 is directed towards the repetitive calculation of a value which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Moreover, claim 16 is directed towards the defining of a target information which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally, claim 17 is directed towards the calculation of values which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of generic computing components such a certainty calculator circuit, score calculator circuit, and converter circuit does not take the claim out of certain methods of mental processes grouping. Therefore, the limitation is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 18:
An information processing method to be implemented by a computer, the method comprising: calculating a degree of certainty expressed by a discrete value for each of one or more phrases included in a search criterion, the search criterion including the one or more phrases and one or more logical operators, the degree of certainty representing certainty of correlation between each of pieces of target information to be searched for and the one or more phrases;
calculating a score for each of the one or more phrases, the score being a continuous value obtained by converting degrees of similarity between the pieces of target information and the one or more phrases, the score being calculated such that the degrees of similarity fall within a range determined for the degree of certainty; and
converting the score calculated for each of the one or more phrases into a conversion score in accordance with a conversion method determined for each of the one or more logical operators.
These limitations, as drafted, is an apparatus that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of mental processes specifically computing scores. Computing scores has long before the modern computer was invented, and continues to be predominantly a product of human endeavor. The instant application is directed to computing scores. Additionally, the calculation of a degree of certainty can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the calculation of a scores can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, the conversion of a score can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of computing scores, and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or pen & paper, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG.
The mere nominal recitation of generic computing components such as a computer does not take the claim out of certain methods of mental processes grouping. Therefore, the limitation is directed to an abstract idea.
If the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to an apparatus instructing the reader to implement the identified apparatus of mental processes of computing scores. The elements of the claim do not themselves amount to an improvement to the computer, to a technology or another technical field.
Here, the claim elements entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (see at least 84 Fed. Reg. (4) at 55). Under the 2019 PEG, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claim 18 does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible.
Claim 19:
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which a computer program is recorded, the program instructing the computer to: calculate a degree of certainty expressed by a discrete value for each of one or more phrases included in a search criterion, the search criterion including the one or more phrases and one or more logical operators, the degree of certainty representing certainty of correlation between each of pieces of target information to be searched for and the one or more phrases;
calculate a score for each of the one or more phrases, the score being a continuous value obtained by converting degrees of similarity between the pieces of target information and the one or more phrases, the score being calculated such that the degrees of similarity fall within a range determined for the degree of certainty; and
convert the score calculated for each of the one or more phrases into a conversion score in accordance with a conversion method determined for each of the one or more logical operators.
These limitations, as drafted, is an apparatus that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of mental processes specifically computing scores. Computing scores has long before the modern computer was invented, and continues to be predominantly a product of human endeavor. The instant application is directed to computing scores. Additionally, the calculation of a degree of certainty can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the calculation of a scores can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, the conversion of a score can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of computing scores, and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or pen & paper, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG.
The mere nominal recitation of generic computing components such as a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and computer do not take the claim out of certain methods of mental processes grouping. Therefore, the limitation is directed to an abstract idea.
If the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to an apparatus instructing the reader to implement the identified apparatus of mental processes of computing scores. The elements of the claim do not themselves amount to an improvement to the computer, to a technology or another technical field.
Here, the claim elements entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (see at least 84 Fed. Reg. (4) at 55). Under the 2019 PEG, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claim 19 does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPUB 2005/0149516 issued to Wolf et al. on 07 July 2005. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-19 (e.g., methods to execute queries with logical operators).
U.S. PGPUB 2002/0169754 issued to Mao et al. on 14 November 2002. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-19 (e.g., methods to execute queries including the use of relevancy and similarity scores via the use of vectors).
U.S. Patent 5,963,940 issued to Liddy et al. on 05 October 1999. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-19 (e.g., methods to execute queries with logical operators including the use of relevancy and similarity scores).
U.S. PGPUB 2023/0334055 issued to Das et al. on 19 October 2023. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-19 (e.g., methods to execute queries with multiple scores).
Contact Information
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mahesh Dwivedi whose telephone number is (571) 272-2731. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:20 am – 4:40 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached (571) 272-4085. The fax 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 20. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Mahesh Dwivedi
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2168
April 06, 2026
/MAHESH H DWIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168