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 .
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 11 recites a data conversion method performed by a data conversion apparatus including a processor that executes a program and a storage device that stores the program, the method comprising. The limitation of causing the processor to perform input processing of receiving a plurality of options and a first question sentence where one of the plurality of options is a correct answer, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” language, “causing” in the context of this claim encompasses a user thinking about a question and selecting the most correct answer to the question. Similarly, the limitations of: converting and output are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 11. 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. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element –processor. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. 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 element of using processor amounts 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 is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 1-10 and 12.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2021/0165833 A1 to Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”).
Concerning claim 1, Kim discloses a data conversion apparatus comprising: a processor configured to execute a program; and a storage device configured to store the program (Abstract, paragraph [0043]), wherein the processor performs
input processing of receiving a plurality of options and a first question sentence where one of the plurality of options is a correct answer (paragraphs [0036], [0047]-[0052] – receives a first question and determines the most correct answer from a plurality of options),
conversion processing of converting, based on the plurality of options and the first question sentence received by the input processing, the first question sentence into a second question sentence in a format different from a format of the first question sentence (paragraphs [0037]-[0046] – second question is determined based on first question, where both questions have different formats), and
output processing of outputting the second question sentence converted by the conversion processing and the plurality of options (paragraphs [0037]-[0046] – second question is output based on the conversion processing).
Concerning claim 2, Kim discloses wherein the second question sentence is an explanatory sentence in a completion format with a missing part to be completed by filling in the correct answer (paragraphs [0039]-[0041] – natural language questions include explanatory sentence in a completion format with a missing part).
Concerning claim 3, Kim discloses wherein the first question sentence is an interrogative sentence that asks which of the plurality of options is the correct answer (paragraphs [0039]-[0041] – natural language questions include an interrogative sentence).
Concerning claim 4, Kim discloses wherein the first question sentence is a declarative sentence that expresses the correct answer by a demonstrative pronoun (paragraphs [0039]-[0041] – natural language questions include a declarative sentence).
Concerning claim 5, Kim discloses wherein in the conversion processing, the processor generates the second question sentence by performing prediction processing of predicting a next word in a word sequence from a beginning in the first question sentence (paragraphs [0037]-[0046] – second question is generated based on prediction processing).
Concerning claim 6, Kim discloses wherein the data conversion apparatus is accessible to a computer that implements a language model for predicting a next word in a word sequence, and in the conversion processing, the processor receives the second question sentence generated by the computer as a result of transmitting the first question sentence to the computer (paragraphs [0037]-[0046] – language model predicts the next word in the sentence).
Concerning claim 7, Kim discloses wherein the processor performs acquisition processing of acquiring, based on a word sequence in the second question sentence and a word sequence in the options, a score indicating plausibility of generation of the second question sentence for each of the options, and in the output processing, the processor outputs the score acquired by the acquisition processing for each of the options (paragraphs [0037]-[0046] – score indicating the plausibility of the second question is determined).
Concerning claim 8, Kim discloses wherein the data conversion apparatus is accessible to a computer that implements a language model for predicting, based on a word sequence in a question and a word sequence in an answer to the question, plausibility of the answer given that the question is generated, and in the acquisition processing, the processor acquires, for each of the options, a score indicating plausibility of the options calculated by the computer given that the second question sentence is generated as a result of transmitting the word sequence in the second question sentence and the word sequence in the options to the computer (paragraphs [0037]-[0046] – language model predicts questions and answers and determines scores).
Concerning claim 9, Kim discloses wherein the processor performs calculation processing of calculating, based on the score, a metric value indicating a performance of the language model with respect to the second question sentence (paragraphs [0037]-[0046] – calculating the score based on at least two questions).
Concerning claim 10, Kim discloses wherein in the conversion processing, the processor generates the second question sentence by analyzing a syntax tree of the first question sentence, matching each subtree of the syntax tree to a predetermined rule, rearranging an order of words in the first question sentence based on an operation method associated with the matched rule, and supplementing with a predetermined word (paragraphs [0037]-[0046] – a hierarchical structure is used to determined the correct answer and second question sentence).
Concerning claims 11 and 12, see the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights