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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 8, 10 – 21 are pending.
This action is in response to the communication filed on 11/22/24.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 8 and 10 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 – 3, 10 - 13, 19, and 20, the term “word” (as in the claimed recitations of “…word…”, or “…risk word…”) renders the scope of the claims indefinite. Specifically, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “word” in claims 1 – 3, 10 - 13, 19, and 20 is actually used by the claims to mean a “phrase” or “a group of words” while the accepted meaning is “the smallest unit of language that can stand alone and still convey meaning” (e.g. See, The Content Authority, “Phrase vs Word: When To Use Each One in Writing”, pg. 1). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
For example, the applicant’s specification attempts to exemplify the claimed “word” and/or “risk word” using characterizations of grammatical units that are not words, but that are actually “phrases”, i.e. groupings of words, such as “…four big things…” or “…three big things…” (e.g. Specification, par. 28 – “…For example, for “four big things”, a well-known common meaning of the word is …”; par. 28 – “… the risk word … can be “three big things”, “four essentials”, etc.”; par. 49, “… the first risk word … can be “letter number” … second risk words such as “letter box number”, “cabinet number”, …”).
However, the examiner points out that the applicant’s disclosure does not clearly and specifically redefine the term “word” to mean a “phrase” or a grouping of words. Thus, the applicant’s claims (comprising recitations of “a word” and/or “a risk word”) are rendered indefinite in scope.
Regarding claims 1 – 8 and 10 – 21, the recited terms of “corpus” and “corpora” in view of the recited term “word” renders the scope of the claims indefinite.
Specifically, the applicant’s disclosure appears to essentially equate the meaning of the term “corpus”/”corpora” to that of a “phrase” or group of words. For example, the applicant alleges that a “corpus” could be the phrase “four essentials for beginners” (e.g. Specification, par. 28).
However, as previously noted above, the examiner points out that the applicant’s specification similarly appears to equate the meaning of the claimed term “word” to that a “phrase” or group of words. For example, the applicant alleges that a “word” could be the phrase “four big things” (e.g. Specification, par. 28).
Thus, the applicant appears to characterize each of the claimed “word” and “corpus” according to the same meaning of a “phrase” or group of words. The examiner notes that the only apparent difference between the examples given for the term “corpus” and the example for the term “word” of the applicant’s disclosure might be that that the example “corpus” can comprises one more individual word (i.e. 4 words vs 3 words) than that of the example “word”.
However, the applicant’s disclosure never clearly defines the scope for each of the terms “word” and “corpus” such that it is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to what specific amount of individual words would cause any particular phrase to fall inside/outside the scope of the term “word” and which amount of individual words would cause any particular phrase to fall inside/outside the scope of the term “corpus”.
Thus, for example, one of ordinary skill in the art is left to question whether or not a phrase, such as “…four very big things…“ would fall within or outside of the scope of the claimed “word”/”risk word”.
Also, for example, one of ordinary skill in the art is left to question whether or not a phrase, such as “…”, would fall within or outside of the scope of the claimed “corpus”/”corpora”.
Therefore, these claims are rendered indefinite in scope.
Depending claims are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims essentially recite the mental process of determining whether or not a “word”/”corpus”, i.e. groups of words, are associated with a “risk”.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed steps for “obtaining” the analyzed words (e.g. “obtaining a … target object” / “obtaining a target corpus”) essentially equate to the data gathering steps of receiving words or phrases, all of which is well-known, routine, and conventional extra-solution activity.
Furthermore, specifically regarding claims 10 and 11, the recitations of “processor”, “memory”, and “instructions” represent only the use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Thus, this judicial exception, as found recited within each of claims 1, 10, and 11, is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims are found to be non-statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1 – 4, 10 – 15, and 19 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuan et al. (Yuan), “Reading Thieves’ Cant: Automatically Identifying and Understanding Dark Jargons from Cybercrime Marketplaces”.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the above noted deficiencies of clarity, Yuan discloses:
A data processing method, comprising: obtaining a to-be-identified target object (e.g. Yuan, Abstract);
upon determining that the target object (e.g. Yuan, Abstract; pg. 1028, “Cantreader”, par. 2 – sentences, or communication “traces”, are identified) comprises a word matching a first argot (e.g. Yuan, Abstract; fig. 1 – words that match a dark jargon, i.e. “argot”), obtaining a target corpus corresponding to the target object from a corpus comprised in a pre-constructed corpus database (e.g. Yuan, fig. 3; pg. 1028, “Cantreader”, par. 2, 3 – Dark + Legit + Rep corpora dataset), wherein the pre-constructed corpus database comprises a first corpus, the first corpus is a risk corpus constructed based on a second argot (e.g. Yuan, fig. 3; pg. 1031, “Architecture” – Legit corpus comprising dark jargons – i.e. a second argot) and a target risk corpus, and the target risk corpus comprises a risk word that has a preset association relationship with the second argot (e.g. Yuan, fig. 3; pg. 1031, “Architecture” – Dark corpus comprising dark jargons similar or the same as the second argot);
and determining, based on a similarity between the target object and the target corpus and a risk label of the target corpus, whether the target object has a risk (e.g. Yuan, sect. 2.3; pg. 1031, “Architecture”, par. 1 - 3 – using hypernym labeling, i.e. “risk label”, within the corpus and finding the semantic similarities to determine is the target word is actually a dark jargon, i.e. “has a risk”).
.
Regarding claim 2, Yuan discloses:
wherein before obtaining a target corpus corresponding to the target object from a corpus comprised in a pre-constructed corpus database, the method further comprises:
obtaining the target risk corpus comprising the risk word that has the preset association relationship with the second argot; and replacing the risk word in the target risk corpus based on the second argot, to obtain the first corpus, and constructing the corpus database based on the first corpus (e.g. Yuan; sect. 4.1; fig. 3; pg. 1033, “Experiment 2” – jargon replacement within corpora to obtain a new corpus, i.e. the target corpus used within the learning model).
Regarding claim 3, Yuan discloses:
wherein obtaining the target risk corpus comprising the risk word that has the preset association relationship with the second argot comprises:
obtaining a first risk word that has the preset association relationship with the second argot (e.g. Yuan, sect. 2.3 – hypernym identification);
obtaining a second risk word that is in a preset risk word knowledge map and that has the preset association relationship with the first risk word (e.g. Yuan, pg. 1035 – “Hypernym candidates generation” – additional related hypernyms are identified from a database, i.e. a “preset risk word knowledge map”);
and determining, as the target risk corpus, a risk corpus comprising the first risk word and a risk corpus comprising the second risk word (e.g. Yuan, fig. 3; sect. 4.1, sect. 4.3 – jargons and hypernyms are combined within input vectors).
Regarding claim 4, Yuan discloses:
wherein the pre-constructed corpus database further comprises a second corpus, the second corpus is a risk-free corpus comprising the second argot, and constructing the corpus database based on the first corpus comprises: determining, as the second corpus, the risk-free corpus comprising the second argot, and constructing the corpus database based on the first corpus and the second corpus (e.g. Yuan, fig. 3; pg. 1031 - “Architecture”).
Regarding claims 10 – 15, and 19 – 21, they are device and medium claims essentially corresponding to the method claims above, and they are rejected, at least, for the same reasons.
Furthermore, because Yuan discloses a computer processor, medium, and instructions (e.g. Yuan, fig. 3; sect. 5.1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7965. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 571-272-3739. The fax phone 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEFFERY L WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights