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.
Response to Amendment
3. Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed on 06/11/2026 is acknowledged. The amendment includes the amending of claims 1, 3-4, 13, and 18-19, and the cancellation of claim 12.
Claim Objections
4. The objection raised in the Office Action mailed on 04/08/2026 has been overcome by applicant’s amendment received on 06/11/2026.
5. Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “generate, by using a neural network, representation vectors of pieces of target information to be searched form and representation vectors of phrases” is grammatically incoherent and should be replaced with “generate, by using a neural network, representation vectors of pieces of target information to be searched for and representation vectors of phrases”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims (1-11 & 13-17), (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 (1-11 & 13-17), (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 (1-11 & 13-17), (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 for searching for information, the apparatus comprising: a memory storing a database including pieces of target information to be searched for, a word vector database, and a document vector database;
one or more hardware processors connected to the memory and configured to: generate, by using a neural network, representation vectors of the pieces of target information and representation vectors of phrases;
store the generated representation vectors of the pieces of target information in the document vector database, and the generated representation vectors of the phrases in the word vector database;
receive a search criterion input by a user, the search criterion including one or more phrases and one or more logical operators;
calculate degrees of similarity between the pieces of target information to be searched for and the one or more phrases by using the representation vectors of the one or more phrases stored in the word vector database and the representation vectors of the pieces of target information stored in the document vector database;
calculate a degree of certainty expressed by a discrete value for each of the one or more phrases included in the search criterion, the degree of certainty representing certainty of correlation between each of the 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;
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;
cause a display device to display one or more pieces of target information selected in accordance with the conversion score as a search result.
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 generation of representation vectors of pieces of target information and representation vectors of phrases can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the calculation of a degree of certainty can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, 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 “memory”, “database”, “word vector database”, “document vector database”, “one or more hardware processors”, and “display device” 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. Specifically, the storage of vectors in a word vector database and a document vector database is simply a data storage step that is an insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the receiving of defined search criteria is simply a data gathering step that is an insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, the display of selected one or more pieces of target information is simply a data output step that is an insignificant extra-solution activity and 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 2-11 and 13-17 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 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.
Moreover, 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.
Additionally, 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.
Furthermore, 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.
Moreover, 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 for searching for information to be implemented by a computer, the method comprising: generating, by using a neural network, representation vectors of pieces of target information to be searched for and representation vectors of phrases;
storing the generated representation vectors of the pieces of target information in a document vector database, and the generated representation vectors of the phrases in a word vector database;
receiving a search criterion input by a user, the search criterion including one or more phrases and one or more logical operators;
calculating degrees of similarity between the pieces of target information to be searched for and the one or more phrases by using the representation vectors of the one or more phrases stored in the word vector database and the representation vectors of the pieces of target information stored in the document vector database;
calculating a degree of certainty expressed by a discrete value for each of one or more phrases included in the search criterion, the degree of certainty representing certainty of correlation between each of the 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;
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; and
causing a display device to display one or more pieces of target information selected in accordance with the conversion score as a search result.
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 generation of representation vectors of pieces of target information and representation vectors of phrases can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the calculation of a degree of certainty can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, 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”, “word vector database”, “document vector database”, and “display device” 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. Specifically, the storage of vectors in a word vector database and a document vector database is simply a data storage step that is an insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the receiving of defined search criteria is simply a data gathering step that is an insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, the display of selected one or more pieces of target information is simply a data output step that is an insignificant extra-solution activity and 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: generate, by using a neural network, representation vectors of pieces of target information to be search form and representation vectors of phrases;
store the generated representation vectors of the pieces of target information in a document vector database, and the generated representation vectors of the phrases in a word vector database;
receive a search criterion input by a user, the search criterion including one or more phrases and one or more logical operators;
calculate degrees of similarity between the pieces of target information to be searched for and the one or more phrases by using the representation vectors of the one or more phrases stored in the word vector database and the representation vectors of the pieces of target information stored in the document vector database;
calculate a degree of certainty expressed by a discrete value for each of one or more phrases included in the search criterion, the degree of certainty representing certainty of correlation between each of the 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;
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; and
cause a display device to display one or more pieces of target information selected in accordance with the conversion score as a search result.
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 generation of representation vectors of pieces of target information and representation vectors of phrases can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the calculation of a degree of certainty can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, 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”, “computer”, “word vector database”, “document vector database”, and “display device” 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. Specifically, the storage of vectors in a word vector database and a document vector database is simply a data storage step that is an insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the receiving of defined search criteria is simply a data gathering step that is an insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, the display of selected one or more pieces of target information is simply a data output step that is an insignificant extra-solution activity and 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.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed on 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue on Page 14 that “amended independent claim 1 recites "generat[ing], by using a neural network, representation vectors of the pieces of target information and representation vectors of phrases" and "stor[ing] the generated representation vectors of the pieces of target information in the document vector database, and the generated representation vectors of the phrases in the word vector database." Using a neural network to generate high-dimensional representation vectors involves iterative computational optimization over large datasets, which is fundamentally a machine operation that cannot be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. However, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “high-dimensional representation vectors” and “iterative computational optimization over large datasets”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the independent claims merely claim “generate, by using a neural network, representation vectors of the pieces of target information and representation vectors of phrases”. The instant specification is devoid of what the claimed “neural network” constitutes (indeed, the term “neural network” is only mentioned (but not defined) in paragraphs 30 and 107 of the instant specification). Furthermore, all that is claimed is vectorization of pieces of target information and vectorization of phrases. Such vectorization operations are merely mathematical operations that can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Additionally, the storage of such generated vectors in a word vector database and a document vector database is simply a data storage step that is an insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicants argue on Pages 14-15 that “Amended claim 1 further recites "calculat[ing] degrees of similarity between the pieces of target information to be searched for and the one or more phrases by using the representation vectors of the one or more phrases stored in the word vector database and the representation vectors of the pieces of target information stored in the document vector database." Computing similarity measures across high-dimensional representation vectors retrieved from dedicated databases for an entire corpus of target information is likewise not an operation a human can practically perform mentally or with pen and paper”. However, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “high-dimensional representation vectors”) is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the independent claims merely claim “calculate degrees of similarity between the pieces of target information to be searched for and the one or more phrases by using the representation vectors of the one or more phrases stored in the word vector database and the representation vectors of the pieces of target information stored in the document vector database”. The instant specification states that a similarity calculation can be calculated via any approach, including a cosine similarity (See “The similarity calculator 102 calculates a degree of similarity with each document for each search word. The degree of similarity may be calculated by any approach. The degree of similarity is calculated by, for example, a degree of cosine similarity between two representation vectors (word vector and document vector) or the inner product of two representation vectors” (Paragraph 33)). Such a similarity calculation is merely a mathematical operation that can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper, in contrast to the assertions from the applicants.
Applicants argue on Page 15 that “amended claim 1 recites "caus[ing] a display device to display one or more pieces of target information selected in accordance with the conversion score as a search result," which is an inherently machine-performed operation”. However, the display of selected one or more pieces of target information is simply a data output step that is an insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicants argue on Page 17 that “Accordingly, the claimed invention integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and is patent-eligible under §101, as it provides specific technical solutions to problems in the field of artificial intelligence and machine learning, rather than claiming a mere mental process or mathematical concept. Applicant respectfully submits that, consistent with the reasoning in Ex Parte Desjardins and the updated M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(1) according to the December 5, 2025 Memorandum, Applicant's claims also are not directed to an ineligible abstract idea, but rather recite additional elements that amount to a technological improvement in searching information using representation vectors and logical operators”. However, unlike in Desjardins, the instant claims do not recite any improvement to the training of a machine-learning model. Moreover, as explained above, the claimed generating of vectors, calculation of degrees of similarity, calculation of degrees of certainty, calculation of scores, and conversion of scores can all be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, as explained above, the additional elements of the claimed storage of generated vectors (data storing), receiving of search criteria (data gathering), and displaying of selected target information (data output) are all insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, there is no technological improvement being recited in the additional elements.
Applicants argue on Pages 18-19 that “Amended claim 1 integrates this improvement by reciting that the hardware processors "generate, by using a neural network, representation vectors of the pieces of target information and representation vectors of phrases," "store the generated representation vectors in the document vector database, and in the word vector database," "calculate degrees of similarity by using the representation vectors stored in the word vector database and the representation vectors stored in the document vector database," normalize the similarity values by "calculat[ing] a score being a continuous value obtained by converting the degrees of similarity such that the degrees of similarity fall within a range determined for the degree of certainty," and "convert the score into a conversion score in accordance with a conversion method determined for each of the one or more logical operators," thereby enabling the uniform handling of AND, OR, and NOT operators in a single search pipeline that concludes by "caus[ing] a display device to display one or more pieces of target information selected in accordance with the conversion score as a search result." Accordingly, amended claim 1 applies any alleged mental processes in a specific information search pipeline that enables the apparatus to "uniformly execute search using search criteria including the AND operator, the OR operator, and the NOT operator using a representation vector." Therefore, when considered as a whole, amended claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract into a practical application and satisfies Step 2A, Prong 2”. However, the mere nominal recitation of generic computing components such as a “memory”, “database”, “word vector database”, “document vector database”, “one or more hardware processors”, and “display device” do not take the claim out of certain methods of mental processes grouping. Therefore, the limitation is directed to an abstract idea. Additionally, the instant specification is devoid of what the claimed “neural network” constitutes (indeed, the term “neural network” is only mentioned (but not defined) in paragraphs 30 and 107 of the instant specification). Furthermore, the claimed generating of vectors, calculation of degrees of similarity, calculation of degrees of certainty, calculation of scores, and conversion of scores can all be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Simply put, improving a mental process is still a mental process. Moreover, as explained above, the additional elements of the claimed storage of generated vectors (data storing), receiving of search criteria (data gathering), and displaying of selected target information (data output) are all insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicants argue on Page 20 that “Amended claim 1 does not merely recite generic computing components. Rather, amended claim 1 recites a specific ordered combination of elements, i.e., generating representation vectors "by using a neural network," storing the generated vectors in dedicated databases, calculating degrees of similarity "by using the representation vectors stored in the word vector database and the representation vectors stored in the document vector database," normalizing the similarity values into certainty-determined ranges, converting the normalized scores in accordance with operator-specific methods, and "caus[ing] a display device to display one or more pieces of target information selected in accordance with the conversion score as a search result." This specific ordered combination constitutes an "inventive concept" because it provides a specific technical solution, i.e., enabling the apparatus to "uniformly execute search using search criteria including the AND operator, the OR operator, and the NOT operator using a representation vector" (I [0126]) - that was not achievable by the conventional vector-sum approach (1 [0034])”. However, as explained above, the instant specification is devoid of what the claimed “neural network” constitutes (indeed, the term “neural network” is only mentioned (but not defined) in paragraphs 30 and 107 of the instant specification). Furthermore, the claimed generating of vectors, calculation of degrees of similarity, calculation of degrees of certainty, calculation of scores, and conversion of scores can all be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Simply put, improving a mental process is still a mental process. Moreover, as explained above, the additional elements of the claimed storage of generated vectors (data storing), receiving of search criteria (data gathering), and displaying of selected target information (data output) are all insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Conclusion
9. 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 1-11 and 13-19 (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 1-11 and 13-19 (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 1-11 and 13-19 (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 1-11 and 13-19 (e.g., methods to execute queries with multiple scores).
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
11. 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
July 14, 2026
/MAHESH H DWIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights