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 41-46 and 58-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES)
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 41 recites steps comprising:
receiving a feed of textual statements, the textual statements comprising statements that refer to the same named entity by multiple names (Receiving a feed of textual statements encompasses observations capable of being performed in the human mind by a human observing a feed of textual statements);
using at least a portion of the textual statements in the received feed to construct a semantic dictionary (The claim places no limitations on the construction of the semantic dictionary. This would therefore encompass a human manually constructing a dictionary using pen and paper);
receiving a distinguished statement that refers to the named entity by a distinguished one of the multiple names (Receiving a distinguished statement encompasses observations capable of being performed in the human mind by a human observing the distinguished statement); and
using the semantic dictionary to identify at least one of the multiple names other than the distinguished name (Identifying at least one of the multiple names using the semantic dictionary encompasses observations and evaluations capable of being performed in the human mind by a human looking up and mentally identifying a name in the semantic dictionary).
As shown above, claim 41 sets forth a series of steps, all of which are capable of practically being performed in the human mind. Claim 41 therefore recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES)
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claim 41 recites one additional element beyond the judicial exception: the recitation in the preamble that the method is “in a computing system”. The computer recited in the preamble is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Even considering the claim as a whole, the recitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Claim 41 therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO) and the claim is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: As discussed above, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 42 recites identifying a preferred name based on detecting frequencies of names used in the feed of textual statements. This encompasses mental observations and/or judgements capable of practically being performed in the human mind by a human mentally noting the most frequent names in the feed of textual statements and selecting that name from the dictionary. Claim 42 does not recite any additional elements. Claim 42 therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept for the same reasons as claim 41.
Claim 43 merely adds the limitation that the preferred name is used at the highest frequency in the feed of textual documents. Claim 43 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept for the same reasons as claim 42.
Claim 44 recites the identified name is preferred based upon being used in an authoritative statement. A human could mentally identify an authoritative statement, therefore claim 44 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept for the same reasons as claim 41.
Claim 45 recites routing the distinguished statement on the basis of the identified name. The claim does not limit how the “routing” is performed. Further, the specification does not appear to use the term “routing”. Therefore, a broadest reasonable interpretation of routing the distinguished statement would encompass mental activity capable of being performed in the human mind. Claim 45 does not recite any additional elements. Claim 45 therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept for the same reasons as claim 41.
Claim 46 requires replacing the distinguished name in the distinguished statement with the identified name. This encompasses mental observations and/or judgements capable of practically being performed in the human mind by a human replacing the distinguished name using a pen and paper. Claim 46 does not recite any additional elements. Claim 46 therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept for the same reasons as claim 41.
Claims 58-63 are directed to computer-readable media collectively storing contents that, when executed by one or more processors, cause acts to be performed, wherein these acts are the same methods as recited in claims 41-46, respectively. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), both product and process claims may recite a mental process. Claims 58-63 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as claims 41-46, respectively.
Additionally, claims 58-63 do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to one or more computer-readable media. Computer readable media encompass both transitory and non-transitory media. Applicant’s specification does not limit the term computer-readable media to exclude transitory media.
Claims 64-69 are directed to a system comprising one or more processors and memory storing contents that cause the system to perform acts, wherein these acts are the same methods as recited in claims 41-46, respectively. The recited processors and memory are recited as generic, high-level computer components. These recitations amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Claims 64-69 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as claims 41-46, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 45, 62, and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 45, 62, and 68 recite “routing the distinguished statement on the basis of the identified name”. No references to “routing” could be found in the specification as filed, particularly “on the basis of the identified name”. If Applicant feels these limitations are supported by the specification as filed, Applicant should cite the particular portions of the specification that support such subject matter in response.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 41-46 and 58-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 41 recites “receiving a distinguished statement that refers to the named entity by a distinguished one of the multiple names”. The specification as filed does not use the term “distinguished” at all. Additionally, the terms “distinguished statement” and “distinguished name” are not commonly known or used phrases in the art. The plain and ordinary meaning of the term “distinguished” would suggest that a “distinguished statement” or “distinguished name” would have some type of quality that would differentiate the statement/name from other statements/names. However, since the specification does not use the term “distinguished”, it is unclear what these qualities would be. The specification as filed therefore does not set forth a standard for ascertaining whether a particular statement or name is “distinguished” from other statements or names.
For the purposes of examination, the term “distinguished one of the multiple names” will be interpreted as a name that matches one of the names of the multiple names. A “distinguished statement” will therefore be interpreted as any statement including one of these matching names.
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.
Claim(s) 41-46 and 58-69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Navta et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2014/0344261, hereinafter “Navta”).
In regard to claim 41, Navta discloses a method in a computing system, comprising:
receiving a feed of textual statements, the textual statements comprising statements that refer to the same named entity by multiple names (a corpus of documents including named entities and their synonyms is analyzed, paragraph [0009]);
using at least a portion of the textual statements in the received feed to construct a semantic dictionary (the corpus is used to create a table of named entities and their synonyms, see Fig. 6, 602 and paragraphs [0009] and [0103-0106]);
receiving a distinguished statement that refers to the named entity by a distinguished one of the multiple names (Fig. 8, a request is received, the request comprising a named entity, paragraphs [0120-0122]; see also exemplary request at paragraph [0074]); and
using the semantic dictionary to identify at least one of the multiple names other than the distinguished name (the named entity table of Fig. 6 is used to identify a named entity or alias for an entity in the request, paragraphs [0123-0127]).
In regard to claim 42, Navta discloses using the semantic dictionary to identify at least one of the multiple names comprises identifying a preferred name based, at least in part, on detecting frequencies of names used in the feed of textual statements (a canonical named entity 610 is determined, paragraph [0105]; based on word frequencies in the corpus, paragraph [0009]).
In regard to claim 43, Navta discloses the identified preferred name is preferred based upon being used at a highest frequency in the feed of textual statements (a canonical named entity 610 is determined, paragraph [0105]; based on word frequencies in the corpus, paragraph [0009]).
In regard to claim 44, Navta discloses the identified name is preferred based upon being used in an authoritative statement (determined by a curator, paragraph [0009]).
In regard to claim 45, Navta discloses routing the distinguished statement on the basis of the identified name (a responder is selected based on the determined named entity, paragraph [0114]).
In regard to claim 46, Navta discloses replacing the distinguished name in the distinguished statement with the identified name (named entity equivalents are replaced with the canonical named entity, paragraphs [0071] and [0106]).
In regard to claim 58, Navta discloses one or more computer-readable media collectively storing contents that, when executed by one or more processors, cause acts to be performed (paragraph [0287]), the acts comprising:
receiving a feed of textual statements, the textual statements comprising statements that refer to the same named entity by multiple names (a corpus of documents including named entities and their synonyms is analyzed, paragraph [0009]);
using at least a portion of the textual statements in the received feed to construct a semantic dictionary (the corpus is used to create a table of named entities and their synonyms, see Fig. 6, 602 and paragraphs [0009] and [0103-0106]);
receiving a distinguished statement that refers to the named entity by a distinguished one of the multiple names (Fig. 8, a request is received, the request comprising a named entity, paragraphs [0120-0122]; see also exemplary request at paragraph [0074]); and
using the semantic dictionary to identify at least one of the multiple names other than the distinguished name (the named entity table of Fig. 6 is used to identify a named entity or alias for an entity in the request, paragraphs [0123-0127]).
In regard to claim 59, Navta discloses using the semantic dictionary to identify at least one of the multiple names comprises identifying a preferred name based, at least in part, on detecting frequencies of names used in the feed of textual statements (a canonical named entity 610 is determined, paragraph [0105]; based on word frequencies in the corpus, paragraph [0009]).
In regard to claim 60, Navta discloses the identified preferred name is preferred based upon being used at a highest frequency in the feed of textual statements (a canonical named entity 610 is determined, paragraph [0105]; based on word frequencies in the corpus, paragraph [0009]).
In regard to claim 61, Navta discloses the identified name is preferred based upon being used in an authoritative statement (determined by a curator, paragraph [0009]).
In regard to claim 62, Navta discloses routing the distinguished statement on the basis of the identified name (a responder is selected based on the determined named entity, paragraph [0114]).
In regard to claim 63, Navta discloses replacing the distinguished name in the distinguished statement with the identified name (named entity equivalents are replaced with the canonical named entity, paragraphs [0071] and [0106]).
In regard to claim 64, Navta discloses a system (computing apparatus, paragraph [0287]), comprising:
one or more processors (paragraph [0287]); and
memory storing contents that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform acts (paragraph [0287]) comprising:
receiving a feed of textual statements, the textual statements comprising statements that refer to the same named entity by multiple names (a corpus of documents including named entities and their synonyms is analyzed, paragraph [0009]);
using at least a portion of the textual statements in the received feed to construct a semantic dictionary (the corpus is used to create a table of named entities and their synonyms, see Fig. 6, 602 and paragraphs [0009] and [0103-0106]);
receiving a distinguished statement that refers to the named entity by a distinguished one of the multiple names (Fig. 8, a request is received, the request comprising a named entity, paragraphs [0120-0122]; see also exemplary request at paragraph [0074]); and
using the semantic dictionary to identify at least one of the multiple names other than the distinguished name (the named entity table of Fig. 6 is used to identify a named entity or alias for an entity in the request, paragraphs [0123-0127]).
In regard to claim 65, Navta discloses using the semantic dictionary to identify at least one of the multiple names comprises identifying a preferred name based, at least in part, on detecting frequencies of names used in the feed of textual statements (a canonical named entity 610 is determined, paragraph [0105]; based on word frequencies in the corpus, paragraph [0009]).
In regard to claim 66, Navta discloses the identified preferred name is preferred based upon being used at a highest frequency in the feed of textual statements (a canonical named entity 610 is determined, paragraph [0105]; based on word frequencies in the corpus, paragraph [0009]).
In regard to claim 67, Navta discloses the identified name is preferred based upon being used in an authoritative statement (determined by a curator, paragraph [0009]).
In regard to claim 68, Navta discloses routing the distinguished statement on the basis of the identified name (a responder is selected based on the determined named entity, paragraph [0114]).
In regard to claim 69, Navta discloses replacing the distinguished name in the distinguished statement with the identified name (named entity equivalents are replaced with the canonical named entity, paragraphs [0071] and [0106]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mass et al., Boxwell et al., Cucerzan et al., Hillard et al., Bao et al., Agrawal et al., Baron et al., Khan et al., and Bunescu et al. disclose additional techniques for identifying named entities and their aliases.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN LOUIS ALBERTALLI whose telephone number is (571)272-7616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-3PM, 4PM-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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
BLA 8/20/26
/BRIAN L ALBERTALLI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights