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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 12, and 18 relate to the statutory category of method/process and machine/apparatus. Independent claim 1 recites “acquiring a bulk data input comprising one or more seed phrases that are requested for derivation; inputting the bulk data input into a model configured to: determine one or more derivative phrases from each of the seed phrases in the bulk data input, each of the one or more derivative phrases corresponding to a respective seed phrase; determine one or more arrangements with which to arrange each of the derivative phrases in the one or more derivative phrases; and determine a characteristic of the respective seed phrase, the one or more arrangements corresponding to the characteristic of the respective seed phrase; and returning an arrangement result to a user, the arrangement result including the one or more derivative phrases in an arrangement of the one or more arrangements, the arrangement indicating one or more recommended derivative phrases of the one or more derivative phrases”.
Independent claim 12 recites “an acquisition module that is configured to acquire a bulk data input comprising one or more seed phrases that are requested for derivation; an input module that is configured to input the bulk data input into a model configured to: determine one or more derivative phrases from each of the seed phrases in the bulk data input, each of the one or more derivative phrases corresponding to a respective seed phrase; determine one or more arrangements with which to arrange each of the seed phrases in the one or more seed phrases and each of the derivative phrases in the one or more derivative phrases; and determine a characteristic of the respective seed phrase, the one or more arrangements corresponding to the characteristic of the respective seed phrase; and a results module that is configured to return an arrangement result to a user, the arrangement result including the one or more derivative phrases in an arrangement of the one or more arrangements, the arrangement indicating a recommended derivative phrase of the one or more derivative phrases.
Independent claim 18 recites “acquire a bulk data input comprising one or more seed phrases that are requested for derivation; input the bulk data input into a model configured to determine :one or more derivative phrases from each of the seed phrases in the bulk data input, each of the one or more derivative phrases corresponding to a respective seed phrase, determine one or more arrangements with which to arrange each of the derivative phrases in the one or more derivative phrases, and determine a characteristic of the respective seed phrase, the one or more arrangements corresponding to the characteristic of the respective seed phrase; and return an arrangement result to a user, the arrangement result including the one or more derivative phrases in an arrangement of the one or more arrangements, the arrangement indicating a recommended derivative phrase of the one or more derivative phrases”.
The limitations of claims 1, 12, and 18 of “…acquir(ing)…”, “…input(ting)…”, “…determine…”, “…determine…”, “…determine…”, and “return(ing)…” as drafted covers mental activity. More specifically, for claim 1, a human after receiving large group of data which contains seed phrases, determines from the seed phrases alternative phrases which have the same meaning or intent. Once the alternative phrases are determined, how the alternative phrases are arranged or laid out based on the characteristic of the seed phrase. Once the layout is determined, the result of the data containing the alternative phrases in the layout that was decided is given to the user.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 12 and 18 recite the additional elements of “processor”, and “memory” which are recited generally in the specification. For example, in paragraph [0034] there is a description of using a general purpose operating system. For Claims 1, 12, and 18 recite the additional element of “model”. For example, in paragraph [00354] there is a description of storing a model int the memory of a general purpose operating system. No description is given of how the model is trained or how it is used to determine the derivative phrases. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideal. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do 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, the additional element of using a computer is noted as a general computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 2, the claim relates to arranging the seed phrases and the alternative phrases based on the characteristics. This relates to a mental activity of determining the layout based on the attributes of the phrases. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 3, the claim relates to wherein the characteristic is the intent of the seed phrase. This relates to a mental activity of determining what the actual intent of the seed phrase is. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 4, the claim relates to wherein the data comprises pre-populated seed phrases, a user defined seed phrases or vendor-defined seed phrases. This relates to a mental activity wherein the seed phrases are already filled in ahead of time. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 5 and 14, the claims relate to wherein the seed phrases include derivative phrased which were previously determined. This relates to a mental activity of using data which has been previously determined. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 6, the claim relates to determining the relationship between the derivative seed phrases and ranking the derivative phrases based on the degree of relationship. This relates to determining how closely the derivative phrases are related and ranking them based on the closeness of the relationship. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 7, the claim relates to using an algorithm to determine the derivative phrases. This relates to a mental activity of using a mathematical algorithm/formula. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 8 and 9, the claim relates to wherein the data is a conversation transcript and wherein the derivative phrases correspond to the seed phrase and the context of the other phrases in the transcript. This relates to a mental activity of reading a transcript to get the seed phrases and determining the derivative phrases. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 10, the claim relates to prompting the user to input the derivative phrases and adding the derivative phrases to the seed phrases. This relates to a mental activity of the user determining the derivative phrases and then the user adding them to the seed phrases. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 11, the claim relates to wherein the arrangement lists the derivative phrases based on how many seed phrases that the derivative phrases are related to. This relates to a mental activity of ordering the derivative phrases based on how many derivative phrases correspond to the seed phrases. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 13, the claim relates to wherein the processing system is a server on a cloud platform or a multi-tenant platform. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer is noted as a general computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 15, the claim relates to arranging the seed phrases and the alternative phrases based on the characteristics, wherein the characteristic is the intent of the seed phrase, wherein the data is a conversation transcript and wherein the derivative phrases correspond to the seed phrase and the context of the other phrases in the transcript. respond to the seed phrase and the context of the other phrases in the transcript. This relates to a mental activity determining the layout based on the intent by reading a transcript to determine and to get the seed phrases and determining the derivative phrases. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 16, the claim relates to determining the relationship between the derivative seed phrases and ranking the derivative phrases based on the degree of relationship and prompting the user to confirm the derivative phrase. This relates to the user determining how closely the derivative phrases are related and ranking them based on the closeness of the relationship. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 17, the claim relates to displaying the arrangement result. The additional limitation of a display is directed towards insignificant solution activity.
With respect to claim 19, the claim relates to arranging the seed phrases and the alternative phrases based on the characteristics and wherein the data comprises pre-populated seed phrases, a user defined seed phrases or vendor-defined seed phrases. This relates to a mental activity of determining the layout based on the attributes of the phrases wherein the seed phrases are already filled in ahead of time. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claim 20, the claim relates to using an algorithm to determine the derivative phrases wherein the data is a conversation transcript This relates to a mental activity of using a mathematical algorithm/formula and also to a mental activity of reading a transcript to get the seed phrases and determining the derivative phrases. No additional limitations are present.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,190 (hereinafter ‘190). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variations of each other.
Regarding Claim 1 (drawn to a method):
Current Application
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method for intelligent generation of one or more related alternative phrases, the method comprising:
acquiring a bulk data input comprising one or more seed phrases that are requested for derivation;
inputting the bulk data input into a model configured to:
determine one or more derivative phrases from each of the seed phrases in the bulk data input, each of the one or more derivative phrases corresponding to a respective seed phrase;
determine one or more arrangements with which to arrange each of the derivative phrases in the one or more derivative phrases; and
determine a characteristic of the respective seed phrase, the one or more arrangements corresponding to the characteristic of the respective seed phrase; and
returning an arrangement result to a user, the arrangement result including the one or more derivative phrases in an arrangement of the one or more arrangements, the arrangement indicating one or more recommended derivative phrases of the one or more derivative phrases.
‘190
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method for intelligent generation of one or more related alternative phrases, the method comprising:
acquiring a bulk data input comprising one or more seed phrases that are requested for derivation;
inputting the bulk data input into a model configured to generate an input based on determining:
one or more derivative phrases from each of the seed phrases in the bulk data input, each of the one or more derivative phrases corresponding to a respective seed phrase;
one or more arrangements with which to arrange each of the derivative phrases in the one or more derivative phrases; and
a characteristic of the respective seed phrase, the one or more arrangements corresponding to the characteristic of the respective seed phrase;
providing the input to the model, the input is processed by the model to generate an arrangement result, the arrangement result including the one or more derivative phrases in an arrangement of the one or more arrangements, the arrangement indicating one or more recommended derivative phrases of the one or more derivative phrases; and returning the arrangement result to a user.
Regarding Claim 12 (drawn to a system):
Current Application
Claim 12:
A data processing system for intelligent generation of one or more related alternative phrases, the data processing system comprising:
a memory for storing one or more modules;
a processor configured to access the memory and to process:
an acquisition module that is configured to acquire a bulk data input comprising one or more seed phrases that are requested for derivation;
an input module that is configured to input the bulk data input into a model configured to:
determine one or more derivative phrases from each of the seed phrases in the bulk data input, each of the one or more derivative phrases corresponding to a respective seed phrase;
determine one or more arrangements with which to arrange each of the seed phrases in the one or more seed phrases and each of the derivative phrases in the one or more derivative phrases; and
determine a characteristic of the respective seed phrase, the one or more arrangements corresponding to the characteristic of the respective seed phrase; and
a results module that is configured to return an arrangement result to a user, the arrangement result including the one or more derivative phrases in an arrangement of the one or more arrangements, the arrangement indicating a recommended derivative phrase of the one or more derivative phrases.
‘190
Claim 12:
A data processing system for intelligent generation of one or more related alternative phrases, the data processing system comprising:
a memory for storing one or more modules;
a processor configured to access the memory and to process:
an acquisition module that is configured to acquire a bulk data input comprising one or more seed phrases that are requested for derivation;
an input module that is configured to input the bulk data input into a model configured to generate an input based on determining:
one or more derivative phrases from each of the seed phrases in the bulk data input, each of the one or more derivative phrases corresponding to a respective seed phrase;
one or more arrangements with which to arrange each of the seed phrases in the one or more seed phrases and each of the derivative phrases in the one or more derivative phrases; and
a characteristic of the respective seed phrase, the one or more arrangements corresponding to the characteristic of the respective seed phrase; and
a results module that is configured to: provide the input to the model, the input is processed by the model to generate an arrangement result, the arrangement result including the one or more derivative phrases in an arrangement of the one or more arrangements, the arrangement indicating a recommended derivative phrase of the one or more derivative phrases and return the arrangement result to a user.
Regarding Claim 18 (drawn to a CRM):
Current Application
Claim 1r:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to:
acquire a bulk data input comprising one or more seed phrases that are requested for derivation;
input the bulk data input into a model configured to determine:
one or more derivative phrases from each of the seed phrases in the bulk data input, each of the one or more derivative phrases corresponding to a respective seed phrase,
determine one or more arrangements with which to arrange each of the derivative phrases in the one or more derivative phrases, and
determine a characteristic of the respective seed phrase, the one or more arrangements corresponding to the characteristic of the respective seed phrase; and
return an arrangement result to a user, the arrangement result including the one or more derivative phrases in an arrangement of the one or more arrangements, the arrangement indicating a recommended derivative phrase of the one or more derivative phrases.
‘190
Claim 18:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to:
acquire a bulk data input comprising one or more seed phrases that are requested for derivation;
input the bulk data input into a model configured to generate an input based on determining:
one or more derivative phrases from each of the seed phrases in the bulk data input, each of the one or more derivative phrases corresponding to a respective seed phrase,
one or more arrangements with which to arrange each of the derivative phrases in the one or more derivative phrases, and
a characteristic of the respective seed phrase, the one or more arrangements corresponding to the characteristic of the respective seed phrase;
provide the input to the model, the input is processed by the model to generate an arrangement result, the arrangement result including the one or more derivative phrases in an arrangement of the one or more arrangements, the arrangement indicating a recommended derivative phrase of the one or more derivative phrases; and return the arrangement result to a user.
As shown in the tables above, it is clear that all the elements of the application claims 1, 12, and 18 are to be found in patent claims 1, 12, and 18, as the application claims 1, 12, and 18 fully encompasses patent claims 1, 12, and 18. The difference between the application claims 1, 12, and 18 and the patent claims 1, 12, and 18 lies in the fact that the patent claims includes more elements and is thus more specific. Thus the invention of claims 1, 12, and 18 of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claims1, 12, and 18. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 2 of the current application corresponds to claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,190.
Claim 3 of the current application corresponds to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,190.
Claim 4 of the current application corresponds to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,190.
Claim 5 of the current application corresponds to claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,190.
Claim 6 of the current application corresponds to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,190.
Claim 7 of the current application corresponds to claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,190.
Claim 8 of the current application corresponds to claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,190.
Claim 9 of the current application corresponds to claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,190.
Claim 10 of the current application corresponds to claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,190.
Claim 11 of the current application corresponds to claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,190.
Claim 13 of the current application corresponds to claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,190.
Claim 14 of the current application corresponds to claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,190.
Claim 15 of the current application corresponds to claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,190.
Claim 16 of the current application corresponds to claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,190.
Claim 17 of the current application corresponds to claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,190.
Claim 19 of the current application corresponds to claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,190.
Claim 2 of the current application corresponds to claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,190.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under nonstatutory double patenting, set forth in this Office Action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 1, 12, and 18 of the current application teach similar subject matter as the prior art of Rusak et al. (US 2019/0237061), Leidner et al. (US 2018/0329883), and Al Hasan et al. (US 2020/0160199). However, the prior art alone or in combination fails to teach “returning an arrangement result to a user, the arrangement result including the one or more derivative phrases in an arrangement of the one or more arrangements, the arrangement indicating one or more recommended derivative phrases of the one or more derivative phrases” as recited in claim 1, “a results module that is configured to return an arrangement result to a user, the arrangement result including the one or more derivative phrases in an arrangement of the one or more arrangements, the arrangement indicating a recommended derivative phrase of the one or more derivative phrases” as recited in claim 12, and “return an arrangement result to a user, the arrangement result including the one or more derivative phrases in an arrangement of the one or more arrangements, the arrangement indicating a recommended derivative phrase of the one or more derivative phrases” as recited in claim 18.
Claims 2-11, 13-17, and 18-20 would be allowable for being dependent on an allowable base claim.
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guo et al. (US 2008/0059442) discloses automatically expanding referenced data.
Holur et al. (US 2025/0209107) discloses data integration and knowledge extraction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATWANT K SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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 D 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.
/SATWANT K SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2653
Prosecution Insights