NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 15-26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of the claims make reference to the incorrect parent claim. For example, claim 15 recites the “computer-implemented method as recited in claim 15,” which likely should recite “claim 14.” The remaining claims, 16-26, suffer from a similar deficiency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are: “data intake module,” “pre-processing module,” “token module,” and “clustering module” in claim 1, impact score module in claim 3, and automatic problem detection module in claim 13.
Because these claim limitations 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite 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 § 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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to performing steps that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind. An analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility follows:
Step 1:
Claims 1-13 recite a system and claims 14-26 recite a method, which are statutory categories of invention, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites analyzing text strings, identifying one or more phrases-of-interest, concatenating the plurality of words, and clustering similar concatenated tokens together, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations entirely in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the steps of analyzing text strings, identifying one or more phrases-of-interest, concatenating the plurality of words, and clustering similar concatenated tokens together may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, and judgement of the text strings (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection Ill). For example, the claimed analyzing text strings may encompass a human observing and thinking about strings of a text. And the claimed identifying one or more phrases-of-interest, concatenating the plurality of words, and clustering similar concatenated tokens together may encompass the human analyzing and thinking about the strings in different manners.
Claims 2-13 recite further limitations that fall under the judicial exception as recited in claim 1. Each of the further limitations encompass performance of the steps within the human mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The additional elements recited in claim 1, a data intake module configured to receive, a pre-processing module configured to receive, a token module configured to receive, a clustering module configured to receive, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations are directed to implementing the abstract idea using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and recite mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 2-13 contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong 2 above, the recitations of a data intake module configured to receive, a pre-processing module configured to receive, a token module configured to receive, a clustering module configured to receive are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data using generic computers and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection Il).
Regarding claims 2-13, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they simply apply the exception using a generic computer.
Claims 14-26 are directed to a method comprising the same steps as performed by the system of claims 1-13. As such, the analysis is the same as applied to claims 1-13.
Therefore, claims 1-26 recite an abstract idea without significantly more, and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 14, 15, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0322509 to Walthers et al. (hereinafter Walthers).
Walthers discloses:
1. A computer incident clustering system for detecting clusters among incident reports, comprising:
a data intake module configured to receive, from a computer network, incident text strings associated with respective incident reports (paras. [0036], [0037] and Fig. 3, block 305);
a pre-processing module operatively connected to the data intake module being configured to receive the incident text strings from the data intake module and to analyze the incident text strings to generate output pre-processed text strings associated with the respective incident reports (para. [0038] and Fig. 3, block 310);
a token module operatively connected to the pre-processing module being configured to receive the analyzed text strings (paras. [0040], [0041]), wherein the token module is further configured to:
identify one or more phrases-of-interest having a plurality of words in the pre- processed text strings (paras. [0040], [0041] and Fig. 3, block 320): and
concatenate the plurality of words of each of one or more phrases-of-interest to output concatenated tokens associated with the respective incident reports (para. [0041] and Fig. 3, block 320); and
a clustering module configured to receive the concatenated tokens associated with the respective incident reports and being further configured to cluster similar concatenated tokens together to cluster associated incident reports (paras. [0041]-[0045] and Fig. 3, blocks 325-345).
2. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the pre-processing module is further configured to lemmatize the incident text strings, to remove stop words from the incident text strings, and/or to remove one letter words from the incident text strings to output the pre-processed text strings associated with the respective incident reports (para. [0038]).
6. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of words are two words such that the phrases-of-interest are two-word phrases (para. [0041] and Fig. 5A, column 505).
7. The computer system of claim 6, wherein the concatenated tokens are two words joined by an underscore or other non-alphabetic character (para. [0041] and Fig. 5A, column 505).
8. The computer system of claim 2, wherein the clustering module includes artificial intelligence (AI) and/or machine learning (ML) techniques to cluster similar concatenated tokens together to cluster associated incident reports (see content incorporated by reference, U.S. Provisional App. No. 62/502440, para. [0027] and Fig. 3).
9. The computer system of claim 8, wherein the clustering module is further configured to use natural language processing (NLP) to cluster similar concatenated tokens together to cluster associated incident reports (paras. [0038], [0041]).
Claims 14, 15, and 19-22 are a computer-implemented method for performing the steps as performed by the computer incident clustering system of claims 1, 2, and 6-9, and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10-13 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walthers in view of U.S Patent Pub. No. 2020/0349183 to Jayaraman et al. (hereinafter Jayaraman).
Walthers does not disclose expressly:
10. The computer system of claim 9, wherein the clustering module is configured to generate vector embeddings associated with each incident report based on the concatenated tokens, and to cluster the vector embedded incident reports as a function of closeness of vector angles between incident reports.
Jayaraman teaches wherein the clustering module is configured to generate vector embeddings associated with each incident report based on the concatenated tokens, and to cluster the vector embedded incident reports as a function of closeness of vector angles between incident reports (paras. [0147], [0157]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Walthers by generating word vectors and determining cosine similarities, as taught by Jayaraman. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to quickly and efficiently compare texts, so as to facilitate searching as discussed by Jayaraman (paras. [0147], [0002], [0003]).
Modified Walthers discloses:
11. The computer system of claim 10, wherein the clustering module is further configured to export clustered data to one or more analytics modules (Walthers – paras. [0042]-[0045]).
12. The computer system of claim 10, wherein the clustering module is further configured to export clustered data to one or more visualization modules for visualizing the clusters associated with incident reports on a computer display (Walthers – paras. [0053], [0054]).
13. The computer system of claim 10, further comprising an automatic problem detection module configured to receive the clustered data and automatically generate a problem report from identified clusters for root cause analysis and elimination (Walthers – para. [0057]).
Claims 23-26 are a computer-implemented method for performing the steps as performed by the computer incident clustering system of claims 10-13, and are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip Guyton whose telephone number is (571)272-3807. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571)272-3655. 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.
/PHILIP GUYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113