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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 8 element S803 reads “copie” which should read “copy” and element S804 reads “uncommon” which, while not a typographical error, is described in the specification as “non-common”. 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 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 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Using the subject matter eligibility test from page 74621 of the Federal Register Notice titled “2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility,” a two-step process is performed. Under step 1, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claim is directed to a process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. In this case, claims 1-7 are directed to an apparatus, which is a machine or an article of manufacture; claim 8 is directed to a method, which is a process; claim 9 is directed to a storage medium, which is a machine or an article of manufacture. Step 2A (part 1 of the Mayo test), using the guidance from pages 50-57 of the Federal Register Vol. 84 No. 4 from Monday, January 7, 2019, requires applying a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, determining if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea. In this case, claim 1 recites generating a vocabulary group, dividing a character string, determine common vocabularies, and associating embedding vectors to vocabularies, which are mental processes. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. In this case, additional limitations of circuitry is a generic computing component, while acquiring and outputting data is mere extrasolution activity, neither of which integrates the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B (part 2 of the Mayo test) requires analyzing the claims to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claims 1 and 8-9, generating a vocabulary group, dividing a character string, determine common vocabularies, and associating embedding vectors to vocabularies are mental processes, which is an abstract idea. Additional limitations of circuitry and storage medium are generic computing components, while acquiring and outputting data is mere extrasolution activity, neither of which integrates the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Regarding claim 2, copying data and assigning identifiers and adding vocabulary to a group are mental processes, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claim 3, assigning identifiers and adding vocabulary to a group are mental processes, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claim 4, dividing a vocabulary into a plurality and associating an average value with a vocabulary are mental processes, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the limitations are further clarifications of the above abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 7, outputting data and acquiring results are mere extrasolution activity, while processing using a machine learning model is use of a generic computing component, neither of which integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or constitute significantly more.
The limitations of the claims, taken alone, do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Applicable case law cited in the Federal Register includes, but is not limited to: Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355-56, Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Benson, 409 U.S. at 63.
See "Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.," dated June 25, 2014, and the Federal Register notice titled "2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility" (79 FR 74618).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spaulding et al. (US 2024/0296211 A1), hereinafter referred to as Spaulding, in view of Williams et al. (US 2022/0245358 A1), hereinafter referred to as Williams.
Regarding claim 1, Spaulding teaches:
A character string dividing apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry (Fig. 6 element 600, para [0067], where a computer is used) configured to:
generate a new vocabulary group based on an existing vocabulary group, the existing vocabulary group including a plurality of vocabularies each being associated with an identifier (Fig. 4 elements 403, 409, para [0046-49], where the table 409 contains words from table 403, where each word is indexed by an identifier);
wherein, in generating the new vocabulary group, the processing circuitry is configured to:
determine whether a vocabulary of a plurality of vocabularies included in the new vocabulary group is commonly included in the existing vocabulary group and the new vocabulary group (Fig. 4 elements 403, 409, para [0046-49], where the table 409 contains words from table 403, such as "bases"); and
associate an embedding vector associated with the vocabulary included in the existing vocabulary group with the vocabulary included in the new vocabulary group without changing the embedding vector based on a determination indicating that the vocabulary is commonly included in the existing vocabulary group and the new vocabulary group (Fig. 4 elements 403, 409, para [0046-49], where the feature vectors from words in table 403 are the same as in table 409).
Spaulding does not teach:
acquire a character string;
divide the character string into a plurality of vocabularies based on at least one of the existing vocabulary group and the new vocabulary group; and
output the plurality of vocabularies of the character string,
Williams teaches:
acquire a character string (para [0192], where a phrase is ingested);
divide the character string into a plurality of vocabularies based on at least one of the existing vocabulary group and the new vocabulary group (para [0192], where the ingested phrase is tokenized by comparing to dictionary entries); and
output the plurality of vocabularies of the character string (para [0192], where the tokenized words are produced),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Spaulding by using the tokenization of Williams (Williams para [0192]) using the word groupings of Spaulding (Spaulding Fig. 4) in order to produce knowledge for storage in a knowledge base (Williams para [0191]).
Regarding claim 2, Spaulding in view of Williams teaches:
The character string dividing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein, among the plurality of vocabularies included in the new vocabulary group,
the processing circuitry is configured to copy a vocabulary commonly included in the existing vocabulary group and the new vocabulary group to the new vocabulary group without changing the identifier (Spaulding Fig. 4 elements 403, 409, para [0046-49], where the table 409 contains words from table 403, where some words share the same identifier, such as "bases" being index 1 in both tables), and
the processing circuitry is configured to assign a new identifier to a vocabulary that is included in the new vocabulary group but not included in the existing vocabulary group and adds the vocabulary to the new vocabulary group (Williams para [0192], where a temporary identifier is assigned to an unknown word, and para [0201], where new words are added to the knowledge base).
Regarding claim 3, Spaulding in view of Williams teaches:
The character string dividing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein, in a case where a first vocabulary included in the new vocabulary group is not included in the existing vocabulary group (Williams para [0192], where a temporary identifier is assigned to an unknown word),
the processing circuitry is configured to assign an identifier of a second vocabulary included in the existing vocabulary group but not included in the new vocabulary group to the first vocabulary included in the new vocabulary group, and add the first vocabulary to the new vocabulary group (Spaulding Fig. 4 elements 403, 409, para [0046-49], where the table 409 contains words from table 403, where index 4 in table 403 is "basic" but in table 409, it is assigned to "baths", and Williams para [0201], where new words are added to the knowledge base).
Regarding claim 5, Spaulding in view of Williams teaches:
The character string dividing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the existing vocabulary group and the new vocabulary group are generated in units of languages (Spaulding para [0053], where custom dictionaries corresponding to different languages are used).
Regarding claim 6, Spaulding in view of Williams teaches:
The character string dividing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the existing vocabulary group and the new vocabulary group are generated in units of terms (Spaulding Fig. 4, para [0046], where the tables list words).
Regarding claim 8, Spaulding teaches:
A method for generating a vocabulary group, the method comprising:
generating a new vocabulary group based on an existing vocabulary group including a plurality of vocabularies each being associated with an identifier (Fig. 4 elements 403, 409, para [0046-49], where the table 409 contains words from table 403, where each word is indexed by an identifier),
wherein the generating the new vocabulary group includes:
determining whether a vocabulary among a plurality of vocabularies included in the new vocabulary group is commonly included in the existing vocabulary group and the new vocabulary group (Fig. 4 elements 403, 409, para [0046-49], where the table 409 contains words from table 403, such as "bases"); and
associating an embedding vector associated with the vocabulary included in the existing vocabulary group with the vocabulary included in the new vocabulary group without changing the embedding vector based on a determination indicating that the vocabulary is commonly included in the existing vocabulary group and the new vocabulary group (Fig. 4 elements 403, 409, para [0046-49], where the feature vectors from words in table 403 are the same as in table 409).
Spaulding does not teach:
the new vocabulary group being used when a character string is divided into a plurality of vocabularies,
Williams teaches:
the new vocabulary group being used when a character string is divided into a plurality of vocabularies (para [0192], where the ingested phrase is tokenized by comparing to dictionary entries),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Spaulding by using the tokenization of Williams (Williams para [0192]) using the word groupings of Spaulding (Spaulding Fig. 4) in order to produce knowledge for storage in a knowledge base (Williams para [0191]).
Regarding claim 9, Spaulding teaches:
A non-transitory storage medium (Fig. 6 element 610, para [0071], where a storage device is used) storing computer-readable program code that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a method for generating a vocabulary group, the method comprising:
generating a new vocabulary group based on an existing vocabulary group including a plurality of vocabularies each being associated with an identifier (Fig. 4 elements 403, 409, para [0046-49], where the table 409 contains words from table 403, where each word is indexed by an identifier),
wherein, the generating the new vocabulary group includes:
determining whether a vocabulary among a plurality of vocabularies included in the new vocabulary group is commonly included in the existing vocabulary group and the new vocabulary group (Fig. 4 elements 403, 409, para [0046-49], where the table 409 contains words from table 403, such as "bases"), and
associating an embedding vector associated with the vocabulary included in the existing vocabulary group with the vocabulary included in the new vocabulary group without changing the embedding vector based on a determination indicating that the vocabulary is commonly included in the existing vocabulary group and the new vocabulary group (Fig. 4 elements 403, 409, para [0046-49], where the feature vectors from words in table 403 are the same as in table 409).
Spaulding does not teach:
the new vocabulary group being used when a character string is divided into a plurality of vocabularies,
Williams teaches:
the new vocabulary group being used when a character string is divided into a plurality of vocabularies (para [0192], where the ingested phrase is tokenized by comparing to dictionary entries),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Spaulding by using the tokenization of Williams (Williams para [0192]) using the word groupings of Spaulding (Spaulding Fig. 4) in order to produce knowledge for storage in a knowledge base (Williams para [0191]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spaulding, in view of Williams, and further in view of Kataoka et al. (US 2024/0241891 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kataoka.
Regarding claim 7, Spaulding in view of Williams teaches:
The character string dividing apparatus according to claim 1,
Spaulding in view of Williams does not teach:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to output the identifiers of the plurality of vocabularies included in at least one of the existing vocabulary group and the new vocabulary group to a machine learning model and acquire a processing result from the machine learning model for the identifiers of the plurality of vocabularies included in the at least one of the existing vocabulary group and the new vocabulary group.
Kataoka teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to output the identifiers of the plurality of vocabularies included in at least one of the existing vocabulary group and the new vocabulary group to a machine learning model and acquire a processing result from the machine learning model for the identifiers of the plurality of vocabularies included in the at least one of the existing vocabulary group and the new vocabulary group (para [0146], where the cluster IDs are determined, and the machine learning is executed using the cluster IDs for translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Spaulding in view of Williams by using the machine learning of Kataoka (Kataoka para [0146]) on the identifiers of Spaulding in view of Williams (Spaulding Fig. 4) in order to perform language translation (Kataoka para [0146]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of Spaulding, Williams, and Kataoka does not teach the limitations of the claims. Specifically, none of the cited prior art teaches dividing a vocabulary into a plurality of vocabularies based on the existing vocabulary group, and associating an average value of a plurality of embedding vectors with the vocabulary of the new vocabulary group, in combination with the other limitations of the claims. Hence, none of the cited prior art, either alone or in combination thereof, teaches the combination of limitations found in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0024986 A1 para [0031] teaches parsing an email for keywords that are entries in a selected domain dictionary; US 2013/0124525 A1 para [0248] teaches reclustering using a new cluster strategy, while saving the original cluster ID under the old strategy.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN S BLANKENAGEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0685. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at 571-272-7602. 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.
/BRYAN S BLANKENAGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights