DETAILED 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 .
The instant application having Application No. 18/960,041 filed on 11/26/2024 is presented for examination by the Examiner. Claims 1-14 are currently pending in the present application.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of Applicant's claim for priority as a CIP of PCT/KR2023//012624 filed on 8/25/2023, and foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KOREA, KR10-2022-0107548 filed on 8/26/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the Applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 11/26/2024 is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected to because the Figure 2 is illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claims 1 and 8, the claims recite the phrase “means of” which should be amended or written as “using”. Appropriate correction is respectfully required.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
As per claim 1, which is apparatus claim. However, it is noted that the use of the term “apparatus” does not inherently mean that the claims are directed towards a machine or article of manufacture. Each component or module of the claimed apparatus can be interpreted as comprising entirely of software per se according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the claimed languages fail to provide the necessary hardware (i.e., one or more processors) required for the claim to fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
According to MPEP 2106, the claim lacks the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or a manufacture within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §101.
As such, claims 2-7 are rejected as incorporating the deficiencies of claim 1 upon which they depend.
As per claim 8 which is method claim comprised steps. The claim does not recite any hardware and/or processor to execute these steps, and/or the claimed process does not have a physical device tied to a machine or apparatus, either explicitly or inherently. According to MPEP § 2106.IV.B, the first step in determining whether a claim recites patent eligible subject matter is to determine whether the claim falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention recited in 35 USC § 101: process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products," while a "process" consists of a series of steps or acts to be performed. For purposes of § 101, a "process" has been given a specialized, limited meaning the courts. Based on Supreme Court precedent and recent Federal Circuit decisions, a claimed process is patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing." In re Bilski, No. 2007-1130, Slip op. at 10 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2008). Since the claim fails to meet the requirements mentioned above to place the claim in the statutory category of a process, the claim fails to fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
The Examiner notes that the “one or more processors” in the preamble has not been given patentable weight. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Therefore, the “one or more processors” should be written in the body of the claim instead of the preamble of the claim.
As such, claims 9-14 are rejected as incorporating the deficiencies of claim 8 upon which they depend.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1, the claim recites “An apparatus for supporting generation of annotation, comprising:
a labeling supporter which receives one or more raw data from a database to generate one or more labeling candidate information for each of the one or more raw data; and
an interface which outputs the one or more labeling candidate information, wherein the labeling supporter determines any one of types of one or more metadata included in each of the one or more raw data as a reference, measures a distance between the metadata included in the one or more raw data corresponding to a type of the reference metadata using a heuristic function, either the Euclidean distance or the Manhattan distance, or an edge hop on a graph, groups the one or more raw data based on the measured distance of the metadata, generates the one or more labeling candidate information including a list for the metadata corresponding to the type of the reference metadata for every group, receives an input signal to select any one metadata included in the list for the metadata for every group from a user, by means of the interface, and changes metadata other than the metadata selected for every group, among the one or more metadata corresponding to the type of the reference metadata into the metadata selected for every group”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 1 discloses an apparatus which is a machine within the meaning of the section.
Step 2A – Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited
The claim recites the limitations “generate”, “determine”, and “measure” which specifically recite “generate one or more labeling candidate information for each of the one or more raw data”, “determines any one of types of one or more metadata included in each of the one or more raw data as a reference”, “measures a distance between the metadata…” and “generates the one or more labeling candidate information including a list for the metadata…”. These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen or paper. For example, the steps of “generate”, “determine” and “measure” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper looking at information and/or characteristics of data and examining (i.e., determining and calculating) to generate the relevant or desired data information. In addition, the step of “measure” covers mathematical concepts which is an abstract idea.
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 claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application
The claim recites the additional elements “receives one or more raw data from a database”, “outputs the one or more labeling candidate information”, “groups the one or more raw data based on the measured distance of the metadata”, “receives an input signal to select…”, and “changes metadata other than the metadata selected for every group…”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional steps: the “receive” and “group” steps mount to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), the “output” and “change” are considered as a mere instruction to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer and/or no more than an idea of a solution or outcome on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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 abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activities identified above, which include the data-gathering and the steps of “receives an input signal to select…” and “changes metadata other than the metadata selected for every group…” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of performing the “receives an input signal to select…”, and “changes metadata other than the metadata selected for every group…” steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
As per claim 2, the claim recites “The apparatus for supporting generation of annotation according to claim 1, wherein the labeling supporter generates the labeling candidate information by removing duplicate metadata, among the metadata included in the list for the metadata, from the list”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 3, the claim recites “The apparatus for supporting generation of annotation according to claim 2, wherein the labeling supporter generates identification information of the duplicate metadata using metadata other than the reference metadata”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
As per claim 4, the claim recites “The apparatus for supporting generation of annotation according to claim 1, wherein the raw data is at least one of video data, text data, and image data”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 5, the claim recites “The apparatus for supporting generation of annotation according to claim 1, wherein the labeling supporter receives an input signal to remove any one of the one or more labeling information, from the user, through the interface and excludes raw data corresponding to a labeling candidate selected based on the received input signal to remove the labeling information, from the group”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 6, the claim recites “The apparatus for supporting generation of annotation according to claim 1, wherein the labeling supporter includes:”, The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
“a data labeling supporter which receives the one or more raw data to perform any one of regression, classification, and clustering to generate an analysis vector;”, the additional limitations “receive” and “generate” mount to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and the additional limitation “perform” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“a data visualizer which converts the analysis vector into visual data; and”, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“a data integrity controller which performs voting on the analysis vector to generate the labeling candidate information”, the additional limitation “performs voting” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and the additional limitation “generate” mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As per claim 7, the claim recites “The apparatus for supporting generation of annotation according to claim 1, wherein the labeling supporter measures a distance of the metadata included in the one or more raw data using an edit distance and when the metadata includes a proper noun, assigns a weight to every type of the proper noun”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 8, the claim recites “A method for supporting generation of annotation which is carried out in an apparatus for supporting generation of annotation including one or more processors and a memory which stores one or more programs executed by the one or more processors, the method comprising:
generating one or more labeling candidate information for each of one or more raw data by receiving the one or more raw data from a database; and
outputting the one or more labeling candidate information by means of an interface,
wherein in the generating labeling candidate information, any one of types of one or more metadata included in each of the one or more raw data is determined as a reference, a distance between the metadata included in the one or more raw data corresponding to a type of the reference metadata is measured using a heuristic function, either the Euclidean distance or the Manhattan distance, or an edge hop on a graph, the one or more raw data is grouped based on the measured distance of the metadata, the one or more labeling candidate information including a list for the metadata corresponding to the type of the reference metadata for every group is generated, an input signal to select any one metadata included in a list for the metadata for every group from a user is received by means of the interface, and metadata other than the metadata selected for every group, among the one or more metadata corresponding to the type of the reference metadata is changed into the metadata selected for every group”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 8 discloses a method which is a process within the meaning of the section.
Step 2A – Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited
The claim recites the limitations as same as claim 1, and therefore are interpreted as an abstract idea under the same premise as claim 1.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application
The claim recites additional elements as same as claim 1, and therefore are interpreted as an abstract idea under the same premise as claim 1.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept
The claim recites the limitation as same as claim 1, and therefore is considered under the same premise as claim 1 as no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
As per claims 9-14, the claims are rejected under the same premises as claims 2-7 respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and the rejections as set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
After consideration the prior arts in the filed IDS and conducting different searches in PE2E - SEARCH, Similarity Search, Google Scholar, and ACM Digital Library, it appears that none of prior arts discloses, teaches or fairly suggests the limitations as a whole in the independent claims 1 and 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,130,815 B2 by Peter et al. teaches labelling, categorizing, structuring, and enriching unstructured data is disclosed. First, raw data is received, and a checksum is calculated and compared with an existing checksum. The raw data is downloaded to an object storage, wherein it is then parsed and transmitted to a sanity check system. The sanity checked data is then loaded into a staging database and a stability check is performed. The stability checked data is then loaded into a master database and transmitted to a search platform. Post checks are performed, and a report is generated, followed by the system updating the watchlist checksum.
WO 2015081303 A1 by teaches Michael et al. teaches capture, processing, storage, retrieval and display of sports performance metrics, analytics, and tagged video streams to expedite processing, editing, and analyzing athlete and team sports metrics, employing wireless motion sensors to collect athlete-specific video sequences engaged in performance, movement or action. Apparatus comprises portable computing device with touch-input display specially adapted to receive and process telemetry metrics from movement and position sensors and single or multiple-angle video devices. Inertial measurement sensors attached to or embedded in athlete equipment create a digital environment for processing, analyzing, and translating performance metrics to improved performance. System provides expedited, comprehensive training and evaluation platform and cloud-based remote access for athletes and teams participating in a multitude of sports to acquire, collect, process, export, and record automatically tagged video sequences and performance metrics for activity, game, season, and career assessment.
US 2023/0418878 A1 by Wonus et al. teaches an enrichment catalog and an enrichment memory graph. Raw data from a source raw datastore is enriched based on an enrichment function. Enriched data is stored in graph nodes with edge associations indicating the enrichment type and confidence level. The enriched data is also stored in the enrichment catalog with full breadcrumb provenance and lineage identifying, with cataloged enrichment steps, down to a record and field in the source raw datastore. Additional enriched values and associations between graph nodes can be entered in the graph by a user. Queries to the multi-model database begin in the graph and continue to the enrichment catalog. Query results include the full sequential chain of enrichments to source raw data records and fields, and may include dynamically generated virtual enrichment catalog records that link search values not found in the enrichment catalog to enrichment catalog records via the graph.
US 2013/0338858 A1 by Cherepinsky et al. teaches organize items of raw data received from at least one sensor of a vehicle as a first data structure, organize classified data objects as a second data structure, and link at least one item of the first data structure to at least one object of the second data structure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bai D. Vu whose telephone number is (571) 270-1751. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:30.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/BAI D VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2162 9/5/2025