DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is in response to the Application filed on 12/25/2023 (foreign priority). Claims 1-17 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Chinese Patent Application No. 202311799624. X, filed on December 25, 2023.
4. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/04/2026, and 06/10/2026 were filed. The submission(s) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
6. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
in ¶ [0085]: “a storage unit 403, configured to import the target keyword currently displayed in the second display region into a target lexicon.” should read:
a storage unit 404, configured to import the target keyword currently displayed in the second display region into a target lexicon.
Appropriate correction is required.
7. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 the limitation(s) of “obtaining a first text to be processed,” “determining a target keyword based on the first text; displaying a first graphical user interface,” “displaying the first text in a first display region of the first graphical user interface,” “displaying the target keyword in a second display region of the first graphical user interface,” and “importing the target keyword currently displayed in the second display region into a target lexicon,” as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one memory,” “at least one processor,” “a graphical user interface,” “a non-transitory computer storage medium,” and a “computer device,” and specifically for claim 9 and 10, nothing in the claim’s elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. More specifically, but not including the generic computer components, the mental processes of a human reading a first text, identifying keywords from the first text, writing the first text in a first piece of paper, writing the identified keywords in a separate, second piece of paper, and adding the keyword to a written dictionary or collection of words. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, only claim 9 and 10 recite four additional elements — using at least one memory configured to store a program code, at least one processor configured to call the program code stored in the memory, a non-transitory computer storage medium storing a program code, and a computer device configured to execute the program code stored in the non-transitory computer storage medium.
The memory configured to store and call a program code is recited with a high-level of generality (see [0105], where a program stored in a read-only memory (ROM) 802 or a program loaded from a storage apparatus 508 into a random-access memory (RAM) 803. The RAM 803 further stores various programs and data required for operations of the electronic device 800).
Furthermore, the at least one processor is recited with a high-level of generality (see [0105], where as illustrated in FIG. 6, the electronic device 800 may include a processing apparatus 801 (e.g., a central processing unit, a graphics processing unit, etc.)).
Likewise, the graphical user interface is recited with a high level of generality and is a post solution activity of display results (see [0084], where display unit 403, configured to display a first graphical user interface, display the first text in a first display region of the first graphical user interface, and display the target keyword in a second display region of the first graphical user interface. Also see [0106], where the following apparatus may be connected to the I/O interface 805: an input apparatus 806 including, for example, a touch screen, a touch pad ... an output apparatus 807 including, for example, a liquid crystal display (LCD)).
Moreover, the non-transitory computer storage medium is recited with a high-level of generality (see [0108], where it should be noted that the above-mentioned computer-readable medium in the present disclosure may be a computer-readable signal medium or a computer-readable storage medium or any combination thereof. For example, the computer-readable storage medium may be, but not limited to, an electric, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus or device, or any combination thereof. More specific examples of the computer-readable storage medium may include but not be limited to: an electrical connection with one or more wires, a portable computer disk, a hard disk, a random-access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or flash memory), an optical fiber, a compact disk read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or any appropriate combination of them. In the present disclosure, the computer-readable storage medium may be any tangible medium containing or storing a program that can be used by or in combination with an instruction execution system, apparatus or device).
Similarly, the computer device is recited with a high-level of generality (see [0104], where the electronic devices in some embodiments of the present disclosure may include but are not limited to mobile terminals such as a mobile phone, a notebook computer, a digital broadcasting receiver, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a portable Android device (PAD), a portable media player (PMP), a vehicle-mounted terminal (e.g., a vehicle-mounted navigation terminal), a wearable electronic device or the like, and fixed terminals such as a digital TV, a desktop computer, or the like).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and concerning claim 9 alone, the additional elements of using at least one memory configured to store a program code, at least one processor configured to call the program code stored in the memory, a non-transitory computer storage medium storing a program code, and a computer device configured to execute the program code stored in the non-transitory computer storage medium to perform the obtaining, determining, displaying, and importing steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 2, and 11, the claim(s) recite(s) “wherein the target keyword is highlighted in the first text displayed in the first display region,” which reads on a human bolding or highlighting a written keyword in a piece of paper. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 3, and 12, the claim(s) recite(s) “obtaining a translation corresponding to the target keyword; and displaying the target keyword and the translation corresponding to the target keyword in the second display region,” which reads on a human translating the important term using a foreign dictionary and writing the resulting translation onto a separate piece of paper. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 4, and 13, the claim(s) recite(s) “storing the target keyword currently displayed in the second display region into a first lexicon; and/or storing the target keyword currently displayed in the second display region and the translation corresponding to the target keyword into a second lexicon; wherein the first lexicon comprises a lexicon used for speech recognition; and the second lexicon comprises a lexicon used for storing translation terminologies,” which reads on a human writing the target term in a first collection of words or vocabulary, and/or writing the target term for speech recognition in a first collection of words and the translation in a second collection of words, wherein the first collection of words is one used for speech recognition, and the second collection of words is used for translation terminologies. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 5, and 14, the claim(s) recite(s) “sequentially displaying target keywords in the second display region based on a positional relationship between the target keywords in the first text,” which reads on a human mentally noting the order of important terms in a document and then writing or reciting those terms in that same order on a separate piece of paper. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 6, and 15, the claim(s) recite(s) “updating the target keyword displayed in the second display region in response to an input of a user,” which reads on a human manually crossing out one word and writing a new word in its place based on a new instruction or correction from another person after reading a list of important terms or words. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 7, and 16, the claim(s) recite(s) “constructing a target instruction for a target language model based on the first text; and inputting the target instruction into the target language model to obtain the target keyword,” which reads on a human formulating an instruction, question or prompt in their mind based on a text they have read, and then asking another person to extract the most important terms from that text. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim(s) 8, and 17, the claim(s) recite(s) “determining a first target text based on a last target symbol in first N characters in the current first text, wherein N is a positive integer in response to a total number of characters in a current first text exceeding a first threshold N; and constructing an instruction for the target language model based on the first target text,” which reads on a human deciding that a text or passage is too long to process at once, mentally selecting only the portion up to a certain punctuation mark within the first N characters, and then phrasing an instruction, question or prompt to ask to another person based only on the shortened excerpt. No additional limitations are present.
These claims further do not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application and further fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
11. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
12. Claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20230085539 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a text processing method, comprising:
obtaining a first text to be processed (see [0066], where the client module 151 may receive a user input. As still another example, the client module 151 may receive a text input through a keyboard or an on-screen keyboard);
determining a target keyword based on the first text (see [0131], where the data collector 651 may extract a keyword from content that the user inputs using an input device while using an application or may extract and store a keyword from a screen that the user is watching);
displaying a first graphical user interface, displaying the first text in a first display region of the first graphical user interface (see [0061], where the display module 160 may be configured to display an image or video. The display module 160 may also display a graphical user interface (GUT) of an app (or an application program) being executed. The display module 160 may receive a touch input through a touch sensor. For example, the display module 160 may receive a text input through a touch sensor in an on-screen keyboard area displayed on the display module 160), and
displaying the target keyword in a second display region of the first graphical user interface (see [0137], where the keyword extractor 711 may extract a keyword from information in an electronic device (e.g., the electronic device 500 of FIG. 5). The keyword extractor 711 may include information on contacts, information on applications, information on playlists, and/or information on displays (e.g., the display module 160 of FIG. 1). The contacts may include a name, a nickname, a phone number, and/or, an e-mail, and the information on applications may include an application name and/or a category. The information on playlists may include a song title, a singer name, and/or a genre, and the information on displays may include a keyword of a currently displayed application, a keyword of currently displayed text, and/or a keyword of a currently displayed image); and
importing the target keyword currently displayed in the second display region into a target lexicon (see [0131], where the data collector 651 may generate additional information using information stored in the personal database 653 and may process and generate secondary data using the additional information. For example, the data collector 651 may extract a keyword from content that the user inputs using an input device while using an application or may extract and store a keyword from a screen that the user is watching. The data collector 651 may extract and store a keyword using the linguistic/practical database 655. According to various example embodiments, the personal database 653 may store, by category, information generated from a user profile and the data collector 651).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches an electronic device, comprising:
at least one memory (see [0118], where the memory 550 may be implemented as a volatile memory device or a non-volatile memory device. The volatile memory device may be implemented as dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), static random-access memory (SRAM), thyristor RAM (T-RAM), zero capacitor RAM (Z-RAM), or twin transistor RAM (TTRAM). Also see [0119], where the non-volatile memory device may be implemented as electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory, magnetic RAM (MRAM), spin-transfer torque (STT)-MRAM, conductive bridging RAM (CBRAM), ferroelectric RAM (FeRAM), phase change RAM (PRAM), resistive RAM (RRAM), nanotube RRAM, polymer RAM (PoRAM), nano floating gate Memory (NFGM), holographic memory, a molecular electronic memory device, and/or insulator resistance change memory) and
at least one processor (see [0026], where the processor 120 may include a main processor 121 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU) or an application processor (AP)) or an auxiliary processor 123 (e.g., a graphics processing unit (GPU), a neural processing unit (NPU), an image signal processor (ISP), a sensor hub processor, or a communication processor (CP)) that is operable independently of, or in conjunction with the main processor 121);
wherein the at least one memory is configured to store a program code (see [0053], where various example embodiments as set forth herein may be implemented as software (e.g., the program 140) including one or more instructions that are stored in a storage medium (e.g., an internal memory 136 or an external memory 138) that is readable by a machine (e.g., the electronic device 101). The one or more instructions may include a code generated by a complier or a code executable by an interpreter), and
the at least one processor is configured to call the program code stored in the memory (see [0053], where, a processor (e.g., the processor 120) of the machine (e.g., the electronic device 101) may invoke at least one of the one or more instructions stored in the storage medium, and execute it. Also see [0103], where the processor 530 may execute computer-readable code (for example, software) stored in the memory 550 and instructions triggered by the processor 530).
Regarding the remainder of claim 9, which recites an electronic device configured to perform the steps in claim 1, the device limitations are rejected based on the same prior art and reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1. The device adds no structural distinctions beyond a general-purpose memory and processor executing the claimed steps, and thus no separate patentable weight is accorded to the device recitation.
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches:
a non-transitory computer storage medium, storing a program code (see [0053], where various example embodiments as set forth herein may be implemented as software (e.g., the program 140) including one or more instructions that are stored in a storage medium (e.g., an internal memory 136 or an external memory 138) that is readable by a machine (e.g., the electronic device 101). The machine-readable storage medium may be provided in the form of a non-transitory storage medium. Here, the “non-transitory” storage medium may refer, for example, to a tangible device, and does not include a signal (e.g., an electromagnetic wave), but this term does not differentiate between where data is semi-permanently stored in the storage medium and where the data is temporarily stored in the storage medium. Also see [0119], where the non-volatile memory device may be implemented as electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory, magnetic RAM (MRAM), spin-transfer torque (STT)-MRAM, conductive bridging RAM (CBRAM), ferroelectric RAM (FeRAM), phase change RAM (PRAM), resistive RAM (RRAM), nanotube RRAM, polymer RAM (PoRAM), nano floating gate Memory (NFGM), holographic memory, a molecular electronic memory device, and/or insulator resistance change memory),
wherein the program code is executed by a computer device (see [0117] where the memory 550 may store instructions executable by the processor 530. The memory 550 may store the personal information of the user in the electronic device 500. The memory 550 may store instructions (or programs) executable by the processor 530. For example, the instructions may include instructions for performing an operation of the processor 530 and/or an operation of each component of the processor 530).
Regarding the remainder of claim 10, which recites a non-transitory computer storage medium and a computer device configured to perform the steps in claim 1, the device limitations are rejected based on the same prior art and reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1. The medium and device add no structural distinctions beyond a general-purpose non-transitory computer storage medium and computer device executing the claimed steps, and thus no separate patentable weight is accorded to the device recitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Claim(s) 2, 6, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20230085539 A1) in view of Petruk (US Provisional Application 63/505,113 and US 20240403558 A1, claiming domestic benefit on May 31, 2023).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Lee teaches all the limitations in claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the target keyword is highlighted in the first text displayed in the first display region.
However, Petruk does teach wherein the target keyword is highlighted in the first text displayed in the first display region (see [0079] (non-provisional) and [0083] (provisional), where a GUI 602 such as a browser window displays the admin panel 604 with a table 606 of rows 608, each row corresponding to a term among a plurality of terms 610 that can be identified in a document, highlighted, and displayed on a knowledge card. Each row 608 can have a plurality of column attributes such as term name, description, related materials, key contacts, update date, and so forth. In this manner, the admin panel presents a condensed view of complete records of data associated with terms that the data store 160 stores).
Lee and Petruk are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electric digital data processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Petruk to highlight the keyword in the first text input in order to emphasize the key term being extracted and displayed in an organized form (see [0083], where in this manner, the admin panel presents a condensed view of complete records of data associated with terms that the data store 160 stores).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Lee teaches all the limitations in claim 1 but fails to teach updating the target keyword displayed in the second display region in response to an input of a user.
However, Petruk does teach updating the target keyword displayed in the second display region in response to an input of a user (see [0081] (non-provisional and [0085] (provisional), where FIG. 6B illustrates an example of the admin panel of FIG. 6A in which input from the computing device has selected a term for editing. FIG. 6B in effect exposes an interface panel 620 to read and update each of the column attributes associated with a term in the data store 160, such as term name 622, description 624, and related materials 626. The admin panel of FIG. 6A also can comprise an Add Term link 609 which triggers the knowledge suggestion check 144C to open a term editing dialog for a new term similar to that in FIG. 6B, but with values for the fields being blank).
Lee and Petruk are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electric digital data processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Petruk to update the keyword being displayed based on a user’s edit or input in order to accurately reflect the extracted keywords for further processing (see [0085], where FIG. 6B illustrates an example of the admin panel of FIG. 6A in which input from the computing device has selected a term for editing. FIG. 6B in effect exposes an interface panel 620 to read and update each of the column attributes associated with a term in the data store 160, such as term name 622, description 624, and related materials 626).
Regarding claim 11 which depends on claim 9 and recites an electronic device, this claim is rejected as unpatentable over the same combination of prior art applied against claim 2 (i.e., Lee in view of Petruk). Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. As detailed in the rejection of claim 2, the disclosed method teaches or renders obvious each limitation of the device recited in claim 2. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 15 which depends on claim 9 and recites an electronic device, this claim is rejected as unpatentable over the same combination of prior art applied against claim 6 (i.e., Lee in view of Petruk). Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. As detailed in the rejection of claim 6, the disclosed method teaches or renders obvious each limitation and step of the device recited in claim 6. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
16. Claim(s) 3, 4, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20230085539 A1) in view of Park (US 20220012436 A1).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Lee teaches all the limitations in claim 1 but fails to teach obtaining a translation corresponding to the target keyword; and the displaying the target keyword in the second display region of the first graphical user interface comprises: displaying the target keyword and the translation corresponding to the target keyword in the second display region.
However, Park does teach:
obtaining a translation corresponding to the target keyword (see [0091], where the translation engine 210 may translate the candidate word determined to be translated. For example, 밤 ([bam])’ being the candidate word determined to be translated may be translated into ‘chestnut’ in the target language. The translation engine 210 may transmit the translation result to the language model 240. According to various embodiments, the translation engine 210 may transmit a keyword selected in addition to the translation result to the language model 240); and
the displaying the target keyword in the second display region of the first graphical user interface comprises: displaying the target keyword and the translation corresponding to the target keyword in the second display region (see [0091], where the electronic device 101 may display a translation result corresponding to the candidate word having the highest usage association at the top position, and may determine the translation result by receiving a user selection for one of translation results included in the list. Also see FIG. 16).
Lee and Park are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electric digital data processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Park to translate a specific keyword and display it in order to improve user communication and understanding with foreign languages (see [0003], where with the advancement of technology, translations can be supported by electronic devices. A user can install a translation-related application in an electronic device and use it. For example, when a user installs a translation application for a corresponding country before going on a trip, the user can use the application to talk with people of other countries and purchase products).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1 and claim 3, Lee teaches all the limitations in claim 1 but fails to teach wherein importing the target keyword currently displayed in the second display region into a target lexicon comprises: storing the target keyword currently displayed in the second display region into a first lexicon; and/or storing the target keyword currently displayed in the second display region and the translation corresponding to the target keyword into a second lexicon; wherein the first lexicon comprises a lexicon used for speech recognition; and the second lexicon comprises a lexicon used for storing translation terminologies.
However, Park does teach:
storing the target keyword currently displayed in the second display region and the translation corresponding to the target keyword into a second lexicon (see [0091], where the electronic device 101 may store the translation result selected by the user in the history data. For example, ‘ship’ selected by the user may be mapped to 배’([bae])’ in Korean being the source language and stored. Also see [0095], where the database 250 may include data for the operation of the translation system 200. For example, the database 250 may include at least one of, but not limited to, surroundings factor data, dictionary data, keyword data, keyword category data, related keyword data, or history data, and those skilled in the art will readily understand that the database 250 may include various data used in the translation operation of the translation system 200),
which fully corresponds to the second alternative of “storing the target keyword currently displayed in the second display region into a first lexicon; and/or storing the target keyword currently displayed in the second display region and the translation corresponding to the target keyword into a second lexicon; wherein the first lexicon comprises a lexicon used for speech recognition; and the second lexicon comprises a lexicon used for storing translation terminologies.” limitation in claim 4. As such, Park fully meets the entirety of claim 4.
Lee and Park are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electric digital data processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Park to store a specific keyword being displayed into a lexicon in order to organize terms that may be retrieved for further processing (see [0089] where the usage association may be analyzed based on, for example, dictionary data stored in the database 250 and/or history data storing a history of languages used by users. The history data may include language usage histories classified based on age, gender, or place).
Regarding claim 12 which depends on claim 9 and recites an electronic device, this claim is rejected as unpatentable over the same combination of prior art applied against claim 3 (i.e., Lee in view of Park). Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. As detailed in the rejection of claim 3, the disclosed method teaches or renders obvious each limitation and step of the device recited in claim 3. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 13 which depends on claim 9 and claim 12, and recites an electronic device, this claim is rejected as unpatentable over the same combination of prior art applied against claim 4 (i.e., Lee in view of Park). Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 9, and Park teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. As detailed in the rejection of claim 4, the disclosed method teaches or renders obvious the first alternative recited in claim 4. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
17. Claim(s) 5, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20230085539 A1) in view of Lee-Goldman (US 20160188702 A1).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Lee teaches all the limitations in claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the displaying the target keyword in the second display region of the first graphical user interface comprises: sequentially displaying target keywords in the second display region based on a positional relationship between the target keywords in the first text.
However, Lee-Goldman does teach:
sequentially displaying target keywords in the second display region based on a positional relationship between the target keywords in the first text (see [0056] In particular embodiments, the suggested keyword query may display the keywords in an order based on the relative positions of the extracted keywords in the content of the post, comments, metadata, or any combination thereof. For example, referencing FIG. 3, the keyword “black friday” may appear in suggested keyword query 360 before the keyword “deals” due to the relative position of the two keywords (e.g., “Black Friday” appears before the word “deals” in the content of post 320, “Best Black Friday deals I found so far . . .”). In particular embodiments, the suggested keyword query may only be displayed in response to a user input).
Lee and Lee-Goldman are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electric digital data processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Lee-Goldman to display the extracted keywords in a sequential order based on their positional relationship in order to retain the contextual information of the extracted keywords intact without losing their comprehensive meaning for the purpose of improving the accuracy of the keyword processing and avoid term misinterpretation (see [0005], where the social-networking system may determine, for each extracted keyword, one or more appropriate topics associated with the extracted keyword (e.g., determining that an extracted keyword “cia” refers to “Central Intelligence Agency” and further determining that it does not refer to “Culinary Institute of America”). This determination may be made based on a context of the extracted keyword in the post. Also see [0056], where for example, referencing FIG. 3, the keyword “black friday” may appear in suggested keyword query 360 before the keyword “deals” due to the relative position of the two keywords (e.g., “Black Friday” appears before the word “deals” in the content of post 320, “Best Black Friday deals I found so far . . .”).
Regarding claim 14 which depends on claim 9 and recites an electronic device, this claim is rejected as unpatentable over the same combination of prior art applied against claim 5 (i.e., Lee in view of Lee-Goldman). Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. As detailed in the rejection of claim 5, the disclosed method teaches or renders obvious each limitation and step of the device recited in claim 5. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
18. Claim(s) 7, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20230085539 A1) in view of Levitt (US 20210255842 A1).
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Lee teaches all the limitations in claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the determining a target keyword based on the first text comprises: constructing a target instruction for a target language model based on the first text; and inputting the target instruction into the target language model to obtain the target keyword.
However, Levitt does teach:
constructing a target instruction for a target language model based on the first text; and inputting the target instruction into the target language model to obtain the target keyword (see [0081], where the platform (100) may include a keyword extracting component (120) configured to extract one or more keywords from a sequence of characters. The extracting component may be configured to extract keywords including one or more of: a capability keyword; a role keyword and a benefit keyword. The extracting component (120) may have access to a language model (122) which is configured to extract the one or more keywords from the sequence of characters. Also see [0155], where extracting the one or more keywords may for example include, with reference to FIG. 6B, inputting (552A) the character sequence into the language model, executing (552B) or running the language model and receiving (552C) as an output from the language model a data structure including the keywords).
Lee and Levitt are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electric digital data processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Levitt because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Lee’s linguistic/practical database 655 and Levitt’s language model perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being extracting a keyword from a user input. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of Lee’s linguistic/practical database 655 by replacing it with Levitt’s language model. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 16 which depends on claim 9 and recites an electronic device, this claim is rejected as unpatentable over the same combination of prior art applied against claim 7 (i.e., Lee in view of Levitt). Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. As detailed in the rejection of claim 7, the disclosed method teaches or renders obvious each limitation and step of the device recited in claim 7. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
19. Claim(s) 8, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20230085539 A1) in view of Levitt (US 20210255842 A1) and further in view of Verma (US 20250045524 A1).
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1 and claim 7; while Lee teaches all the limitations in claim 1, and Levitt teaches all the limitations in claim 7, both fail to teach wherein the electronic device is further enabled to: in response to a total number of characters in a current first text exceeding a first threshold N, determine a first target text based on a last target symbol in first N characters in the current first text, wherein N is a positive integer; and construct an instruction for the target language model based on the first target text.
However, Verma does teach:
in response to a total number of characters in a current first text exceeding a first threshold N, determine a first target text based on a last target symbol in first N characters in the current first text, wherein N is a positive integer (see [0095], where the process 800 divides (at step 820) the input text into one or more segments sequentially based on the set of characteristics. For example, the system 100 may identify one or more sentences in the input text by identifying a period, semicolon, exclamation point, or a question mark. The system 100 may then perform a word count (e.g., the first characteristic) for each sentence. When none of the sentences meets or exceeds the character limit, the system 100 may divide the input text into the sentences as the segments derived from the input text. If there is a sentence longer than the character limit, the system may look for a conjunction (e.g., the second characteristic) in the sentence to divide the sentence into two sub-sentences, and each of the sub-sentence may be a segment); and
construct an instruction for the target language model based on the first target text (see [0100], where the process 800 may further include applying each combined segment in the list of combined segments sequentially to a machine learning model, and generating, via a machine learning model, an output corresponding to the list of combined segments).
Lee and Verma are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electric digital data processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Verma to construct an instruction for a language model using a shortened collection of keywords or phrases which may exceed a character length based on a delimiter or punctuation mark in order to preserve the context of the input text intact despite having a character limit (see [0002], where for most of the machine learning models, especially natural language processing models (e.g., transformer-based pretrained language models), there is a fixed maximum length on a character number of input text (e.g., 512 characters) that a user can input. The maximum length of the input text limits the capability of the machine learning model to ingest a longer input (e.g., text that is beyond the maximum length). In order to process the input text that exceeds the maximum length, the input text is required to be chunked or split into several chunks that are under the maximum and are sent to the machine learning model separately. Also see [0003], where the existing solutions cannot process an input text with multiple languages, which leads the machine learning models to predict outputs inaccurately when the language in the input text does not match a set source language. Also see [0004] where as such, it is desirable to logically chunk an input text for the machine learning models while preserving the context of the input text and an identified language for each chunk, so that the machine learning model can efficiently and accurately output predictions).
Regarding claim 17 which depends on claim 9 and claim 16, and recites an electronic device, this claim is rejected as unpatentable over the same combination of prior art applied against claim 8 (i.e., Lee in view of Levitt and further in view of Verma). Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 9 and Levitt teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as noted above. As detailed in the rejection of claim 8, the disclosed method teaches or renders obvious each limitation and step of the device recited in claim 8. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Conclusion
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN HONG FANG-WU whose telephone number is (571)270-0607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM to 5PM.
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, Paras Shah can be reached at (571)-270-1650. 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.
/JOHN HONG FANG-WU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2653
/Paras D Shah/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
07/14/2026
Prosecution Insights