DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the original application filed on 03/27/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which, claims 1 and 10 are presented in independent form.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Chinese Patent Application No. 202410496265.9 filed on 04/24/2024. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner notes that while not required there was no statement of claim for foreign priority in the application’s specification document.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/27/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 03/27/2025 are accepted.
Specification
The specification submitted on 03/27/2025 is accepted.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE INFORMATION QUERYING OF FEATURE VALUES AND PROPORTIONS
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a receiving unit configured to…” in independent claim 1.
“a computing unit configured to…” in independent claim 1.
“an output unit configured to…” in independent claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim limitations "a receiving unit configured to...", "a computing unit configured to...", and "an output unit configured to..." in independent claim 1 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-9 are dependent on independent claim 1, therefore, these claims are indefinite and also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as applied to independent claims 1
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 10 is directed towards a process and recites the limitations of “the computing unit generating at least one proportion according to at least one first feature value, at least one second feature value, and the plurality of data strings”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the mathematically calculating of a proportion based on a first feature value, a second feature value, and a plurality of data strings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements – an information query system comprising a receiving unit, a computing unit, and an output unit, “the receiving unit receiving a query request…”, “the computing unit selecting a plurality of data strings…”, and “the output unit outputting…”. The additional elements of an information query system comprising a receiving unit, a computing unit, and an output unit are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of executing stored instructions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional limitations of “the receiving unit receiving a query request…”, “the computing unit selecting a plurality of data strings…”, and “the output unit outputting…” amount to no more than the gathering/receiving and outputting of data. These additional elements amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activities (See MPEP 2106.05(g) “data gathering and outputting”). Accordingly, the additional elements do 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.
In step 2b, 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 an information query system comprising a receiving unit, a computing unit, and an output unit amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional elements of “the receiving unit receiving a query request…”, “the computing unit selecting a plurality of data strings…”, and “the output unit outputting…” amount to no more than receiving/transmitting of data which amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activities that the courts have recognized to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Insignificant extra-solution activities that the courts have recognized to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The Taking the elements both individually and as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regard to dependent claims 11 and 12, these claims merely elaborate on the abstract idea itself (e.g., details for the calculating of the proportion as a quotient) and do not add any additional limitations. Therefore, these claims are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With regard to dependent claim 13, the claim merely elaborates on how the receiving unit receives the query request. The examiner has discussed above that merely receiving of data does not amount to a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claim is likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With regard to dependent claim 14, the claim merely elaborates that the calculated proportion is presented through a display unit. The examiner has discussed above that merely displaying/outputting of data does not amount to a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, these claims are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With regard to dependent claim 15, the claim merely elaborates where the historical data being selected is stored. The examiner has discussed above that merely receiving of data does not amount to a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the claim recites the additional element – a cloud device. The additional element of a cloud device is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As discussed above, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, therefore the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Taking the elements both individually and as a whole, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
With regard to dependent claim 16, the claim merely elaborates the information query system receives the historical data through a network unit. The examiner has discussed above that merely receiving of data does not amount to a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the claim recites the additional element – a network unit. The additional element of a network unit is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As discussed above, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, therefore the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Taking the elements both individually and as a whole, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
With regard to dependent claims 17-20, these claims merely elaborate on how the computing unit selects the plurality of data strings (e.g. using a best matching algorithm/an information retrieval language model algorithm). The examiner has discussed above that merely receiving/gathering of data does not amount to a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claim is likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art of record does not render obvious, nor anticipate the combination of claimed elements recited in the independent claims, in particular, the prior art does not teach “the receiving unit receiving a query request, the query request having a query value; the computing unit selecting a plurality of data strings that match the query value from historical data, the plurality of data strings each comprising a first feature value and a second feature value, the first feature value being related to the query value; and the computing unit generating at least one proportion according to at least one first feature value, at least one second feature value, and the plurality of data strings; and the output unit outputting the at least one proportion, and the at least one second feature value corresponding to the at least one proportion.” (in combination with the other limitations of the independent claims).
While no prior art rejection is given by the examiner at this time, the claims are not allowable as the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea (see rationale above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carasso et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0339357) – “Proportion based real time display of statistics and values for selected regular expressions” teaches real time display of event records and extracted values based on at least one extraction rule.
Parizy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0116786) – “METHOD FOR ESTIMATING FAILURE RATE AND INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE” teaches generating appearance frequency information indicating frequencies at which feature values appear in search history information.
Kulkarni (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0340256) – “RANKING PARTIAL SEARCH QUERY RESULTS BASED ON IMPLICIT USER INTERACTIONS” teaches a system that receives a search query, identifies search results that match the search query, and presents the search results to the requestor.
Bamford et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0074085) – “ASSOCIATIVE SEARCH SYSTEMS AND METHODS” teaches determine associations between terms based on their coincidence within one or more documents or a pre-established association between the terms as recorded in search history.
Boone et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0198459) – “System And Method For Online Information Analysis” teaches user can search for arbitrary terms and get back a historical record of online buzz based on those terms.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDDY CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-9785. The examiner can normally be reached MON-TH 8:00AM-4:00PM 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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at (571)270-1760. 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.
/Eddy Cheung/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights