DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08 August 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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: preprocessing unit, valid word selection unit, and a scoring unit in claims 1-7.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR101980344, hereinafter referred to as D1, in view of KR101713483, hereinafter referred to as D2.
Regarding claim 1, D1 discloses an electronic device that performs a scoring method based on essay text data (“In order to raise the competency of essay writing, feedback based on accurate evaluation should be preceded,” D1, Highlight 1.), the electronic device comprising:
a preprocessing unit configured to segment an input story by each word (“The server includes a keyword extracting unit for extracting at least one keyword for each sentence from the essay data,” D1, Highlight 2.) and, according to a word meaning inference possibility, distinguish first context information and second context information and output the distinguished information (“The comprehension evaluating unit 150 may calculate the comprehension score by comparing the set of context words corresponding to the first paragraph with the set of context words matched to the first task,” D1, Highlight 3. Here, the first context information is the set of context words of the first paragraph and the second context information is the set of context words of the first task.).
D1, though, does not disclose performing expansion to similar words with respect to second context information; and scoring by calculating the similarities of output values of a valid word selection unit.
D2 is cited to disclose a valid word selection unit configured to extract, from the first context information, word information satisfying a predetermined criterion, extract, from the first context information, word information having a specific linguistic form , and carry out analogous word expansion for the second context information (“In one embodiment, the document normalization unit 212-1 may convert an abbreviation included in the input answer into a standard expression using a thesaurus stored in the storage unit 220. [ That is, the document normalization unit 212-1 checks whether each of the extracted word phrases is included in a thesaurus stored in the storage unit 220, and if each of the phrases extracted in the sentence separating step S310 is included in the thesaurus If it is not included, and if each of the extracted words is included in the thesaurus without changing the corresponding word, the word can be changed to an abbreviated extended word contained in the thesaurus. A thesaurus may mean a dictionary representing a relationship between different words (synonyms or antonyms). For example, the thesaurus may be registered as a thesaurus of "evaluation person", "KICE", "curriculum evaluation person", "Korean curriculum evaluation source", and the document normalization unit 212-1 confirms the input answer, "," KICE ", and" Curriculum Evaluation Institute ", all of them can be changed to" Korea Curriculum Evaluation Institute ",” D2, Highlight 1. A document normalization unit can modify abbreviations included in each sentence included in an input answer to standard expressions with the same concept or meaning in an abbreviation expansion step; a thesaurus refers to a dictionary showing relationships (synonyms or antonyms) between different words.); and
a scoring unit configured to receive output values of the valid word selection unit for each analysis element of essay text data, and calculate a degree of similarity between data to be compared and the output values to output scoring information of the essay text data (“Each of the second predetermined number of answers may be classified into a cluster corresponding to a classification criterion equal to or greater than the determined value and a score may be assigned to each of the classified clusters according to the classification level,” D2, Highlight 2. An answer scoring device compares feature vectors of each of a plurality of input answers with feature vectors of each of at least two second classification criteria, classifies each of the plurality of input answers into a classification level corresponding to the second classification criterion having the highest similarity between the vectors, and assigns scores to each classification level.). D2 benefits D1 by providing a thesaurus to enable re-writing of an essay, thereby enhancing the user’s ability to edit essays. Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of D1 with those of D2 to improve the learning essay writing system of D1.
Regarding claim 2, D1, as modified by D2, discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the valid word selection unit extracts adjective word information from the first context information based on a first linguistic form inference model, and extracts noun word information based on a second linguistic form inference model which has a higher inference speed but lower accuracy than the first linguistic form inference model (“The keyword extracting unit 130 extracts keywords in the first sentence of the phrase " Lecture 1 discusses Langke and Collingwood, the different positions on which Kaga views history, " and discusses " Langke, Collingwood, . The keyword extracting unit 130 may exclude the search and extract keywords based on subject, object, verb or adjective. In order to extract a subject, an object, a verb, and an adjective, the keyword extracting unit 130 extracts a search (,,,) used after the subject, an examination (,) used after the subject, Or the verb "-", "-", and "-" used in verbs can be used. The keyword extracting unit 130 may generate and store adjacent words as one keyword in the case of object and verb in order to reduce errors in particular. The content of the object is denied according to the verb, and may have a meaning in contrast to the context. In this way, the keyword extracting unit 130 can extract one or more keywords for each sentence including the essay data,” D1, Highlight 4.).
Regarding claim 3, D1, as modified by D2, discloses the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the second linguistic form inference model generates an original form of a word, compares a word in the input story with the original form of the word, and converts the original form of the word back to an original word (D2, Highlight 1.).
Regarding claim 4, D1, as modified by D2, discloses the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the valid word selection unit outputs dictionary-defined word information in the first context information as the word information satisfying the predetermined criterion (D2, Highlight 1.).
Regarding claim 5, D1, as modified by D2, discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the output values are information obtained by vectorizing, for each of the analysis elements, the word information satisfying the predetermined criterion, the word information having the specific linguistic form, and analogous word expansion result information (D2, Highlight 2.).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR101980344, hereinafter referred to as D1, in view of KR101713483, hereinafter referred to as D2, and further in view of CN107480125, hereinafter referred to as D3.
Regarding claim 6, D1, as modified by D2, discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the scoring unit compares distribution of the number of words in the data to be compared and distribution of the output values. Neither D1 nor D2, though, discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the scoring unit compares distribution of the number of words in the data to be compared and distribution of the output values (“Further, the step S3 of obtaining the word distribution pattern step includes: counting the position of the word in the relational text; using the Beta distribution to fit the position information of the word to obtain the parameters α, β, and then counting the position of the word in the cluster The probability γ that appears in , represents the word as a triplet of (α, β, γ); the triplets of all words in a cluster constitute the word distribution pattern of the cluster,” D3, Highlight 1.). D3 benefits D1 by calculating word distribution patterns to convert the training set into a vector and training the classifier using Gradient Boosted Decision Trees (GBDT). Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of D1 with those of D3 to training of the learning essay writing system of D1.
Regarding claim 7, D1, as modified by D2 and D3, discloses the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the scoring unit compares distribution of the number of all words in the data to be compared and the output values, or compares distribution of the number of words for each position in the data to be compared and the essay text data. Neither D1 nor D2, though, discloses wherein the scoring unit compares distribution of the number of all words in the data to be compared and the output values, or compares distribution of the number of words for each position in the data to be compared and the essay text data (“Further, the step S3 of obtaining the word distribution pattern step includes: counting the position of the word in the relational text; using the Beta distribution to fit the position information of the word to obtain the parameters α, β, and then counting the position of the word in the cluster The probability γ that appears in , represents the word as a triplet of (α, β, γ); the triplets of all words in a cluster constitute the word distribution pattern of the cluster. Further, the training steps of the classifier include: initializing the vector according to the size of the cluster; using a sliding window of 4 to 10 to find the word sequence with the highest frequency in the sentences of the training set; using α, β parameters, and the position of the word in the word sequence, Calculate the matching degree of the word and fill it in the corresponding position of the vector; splice the word sequence in the vector of each cluster, and use GBDT to train the vector to obtain a classifier,” D3, Highlights 1-2.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892. In particular, the examiner notes Song et al. as receiving a first sentence via the communication module; identify a first newly coined word included in the first sentence; obtain a second sentence by identifying a first alternative word corresponding to the first newly coined word, and replacing the first newly coined word in the first sentence with the first alternative word; obtain a third sentence by correcting a grammatical error in the second sentence based on the first alternative word occurring the grammatical error when replacing the first newly coined word; and transmit the third sentence to an external device via the communication module.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE L THOMAS-HOMESCU whose telephone number is (571)272-0899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-6.
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, Bhavesh M Mehta can be reached on 5712727453. 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.
/ANNE L THOMAS-HOMESCU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656