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 .
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application 19/104,404 filed on 02/18/2025.
Status of claims:
Claims 1-8 are pending in this Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 02/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1, 7 and 8:
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites “An information processing apparatus…” therefore the claim is a machine.
Claim 7 recites “A related word detection method...” the claim recites a series of steps and therefore is process.
Claim 8 recites “A computer-readable, non-transitory storage medium…”, therefore the claim is a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 1, 7,8 recite limitations “retrieving, with use of an extracted word extracted from a target document, a related document related to the extracted word; and detecting, from among candidate words extracted from the related document detected in the related document retrieval process, a related word related to the target document”. The limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing apparatus”, “processor”, “computer-readable, non-transitory storage medium” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
For example, limitation “retrieving, with use of an extracted word extracted from a target document, a related document related to the extracted word” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper mentally performing an evaluation or judgement process. One of ordinary skills in the art can read an extracted word from a document and compare the extracted word to other documents to find relations between them. Then, documents that are found to have similarities to the extracted word can be selected.
Limitation “detecting, from among candidate words extracted from the related document detected in the related document retrieval process, a related word related to the target document” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper performing an evaluation or judgement process. One of ordinary skills in the art can read and determine a word from among candidate words extracted from the related document that is related to a particular document. Then, the particular is selected.
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “a related document retrieval process”, “a related word detection process”, “…by at least one processor…”, “a related document retrieval means”, “a related word detection means” are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The computer system in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “a related document retrieval process”, “a related word detection process”, “…by at least one processor…”, “a related document retrieval means”, “a related word detection means” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 2:
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 2 recites limitations “extracting, on the basis of the granularity designated, the extracted word from among the words constituting the target document.” The limitation is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing apparatus”, “processor”, “computer-readable, non-transitory storage medium” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
For example, limitation “extracting, on the basis of the granularity designated, the extracted word from among the words constituting the target document” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper mentally obtaining a word from a document based on the granularity the word is assigned to. One of ordinary skills in the art can determine a granularity such as how broad or narrow a word is defined and extract a word based on the identified granularity.
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “a reception process”, “an extraction process” are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claim recites the additional elements “receiving designation of a granularity in a hierarchy”. The limitations amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites the additional elements “words constituting the target document are classified in a hierarchical structure”. The limitation amounts to mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
The computer system in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations a reception process”, “an extraction process”; “words constituting the target document are classified in a hierarchical structure”; and “receiving designation of a granularity in a hierarchy” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05 (g) and MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 3:
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 3 recites limitations “generating a search query including: the extracted word extracted from the target document; and a sentence included in the target document and containing the extracted word”; and “retrieves the related document with use of the search query”. The limitation is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing apparatus”, “processor”, “computer-readable, non-transitory storage medium” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
For example, limitation “generating a search query including: the extracted word extracted from the target document; and a sentence included in the target document and containing the extracted word” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper mentally creating a search query such as a query prompt that includes the extracted word and the sentence included in the target document and containing the extracted word.
Limitation “retrieves the related document with use of the search query” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper mentally using the extracted word and sentence to find related documents. One of ordinary skills in the art can compare the words and sentences to other documents and retrieve documents that are found related to the words and sentences.
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “search query generation process” and “related document retrieval process” which are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The computer system in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “search query generation process” and “related document retrieval process” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 4:
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element “related document retrieval process, the at least one processor retrieves…” is merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claim recites the additional elements “…retrieves the related document from a corpus including a plurality of documents”. The limitations amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites the additional elements “the corpus includes a reconstructed document generated by reconstruction of a document with use of an important word which is relatively high in importance among words included in the document”. The limitation amounts to mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The computer system in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “the related document retrieval process, the at least one processor retrieves the related document from a corpus including a plurality of documents; and the corpus includes a reconstructed document generated by reconstruction of a document with use of an important word which is relatively high in importance among words included in the document.” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05 (g) and MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 5:
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 5 recites limitation “extracting, as the candidate words, important words which are relatively high in importance and are identified on the basis of at least one selected from the group consisting of: structure information indicative of a structure of the related document; and accompanying information which accompanies the related document.” The limitation is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing apparatus”, “processor”, “computer-readable, non-transitory storage medium” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
For example, limitation “extracting, as the candidate words, important words which are relatively high in importance and are identified on the basis of at least one selected from the group consisting of: structure information indicative of a structure of the related document; and accompanying information which accompanies the related document” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper mentally obtaining a word from a set of candidate words based on the word’s properties such as its importance and structure/accompany information. One of ordinary skills in the art can read words and their corresponding additional data to determine the ones to be extracted.
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “candidate word extraction process” are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The computer system in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “candidate word extraction process” is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 6:
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 6 recites limitation “calculating, with use of a scorer, a score indicative of a relevance between the target document and each of the candidate words, the scorer
being used for calculation of a score indicative of a relevance between a search word and a website in a search engine”; “detects the related word from among the candidate words on the basis of the score”. The limitation is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing apparatus”, “processor”, “computer-readable, non-transitory storage medium” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
For example, limitation “calculating, with use of a scorer, a score indicative of a relevance between the target document and each of the candidate words, the scorer being used for calculation of a score indicative of a relevance between a search word and a website in a search engine” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper mentally performing an evaluation or judgement process. One of ordinary skills in the art can determine a score between two entities such as a document and a word to indicate relevancy between them.
Limitation “detects the related word from among the candidate words on the basis of the score” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper mentally selecting a word among the candidate words based on the assigned score of each word to a document. For example, one of ordinary skills in the art can determine words with highest score and select them as related words to the target document.
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “a score calculation process” and “related word detection process” are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The computer system in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “a score calculation process” and “related word detection process” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US PGPUB 20110314024) “Chang” in view of Wu et al. (US PGPUB 20050004790) “Wu”.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches an information processing apparatus, comprising at least one processor ([0045]), the at least one processor carrying out: a related document retrieval process of retrieving, with use of an extracted word extracted from a target document, a related document related to the extracted word ([0016] FIG. 1 is a flow diagram of an exemplary method 100 that provides for document searching by semantic content. The exemplary method 100 begins at 102 and involves receiving an end user selection of a desired first portion of an initial document from a database comprising potential target documents, at 104. Here, the initial document comprises metadata labels that describe attributes of components of the initial document (e.g. words), and the selected first portion comprises components of the initial document that have desired semantic content…[0020] At 106, the initial document, which has the selected first portion, is run through one or more trained classifiers in order to identify a first potential target document from the database. In this embodiment the first potential target document has a second portion that has a same semantic content as the first portion, which was selected by the end user… Examiner’s note: Potential target document is retrieved based on the selected portion of the initial document. Thus, the user selection of a desired first portion of an initial document can correspond to extracted word extracted from a target document, and the retrieved potential target document can correspond to a related document); and a related word detection process of detecting, from the related document detected in the related document retrieval process, a related word related to the target document ([0020] In this embodiment the first potential target document has a second portion that has a same semantic content as the first portion, which was selected by the end user... [0021] Here, for example, the classifier can attempt to identify a target document from the database that has the same semantic content identified by the end-user in the initial document. Further, in this example, the classifier can attempt to highlight a portion of the target document (second portion) that comprises the same semantic content as the portion highlighted by the end-user (first portion). In this way, the classifiers are used to find documents having the content desired by the end-user, which may or may not use the same words, but has a same meaning, for example… Examiner’s note: The system finds and outputs a portion of the target document that comprises the same semantic content as the portion highlighted by the end-user which can correspond to a related word related to the target document).
Chang does not explicitly teach detecting, from among candidate words extracted from the related document, a related word.
Wu teaches detecting, from among candidate words extracted from the related document, a related word ([0066]: Similarity calculator component 252 receives textual input 300 that contains a word for which similar words are to be located…[0068]: For each word in dependency structure database that has a possible translation that is found in the translation set for the input word, those words are identified on a candidate word list as candidate similar words to the input word… [0069] Similarity calculator component 252 first selects a candidate word from the candidate word list. This is indicated by block 306 in FIG. 4B. Next, similarity calculating component 252 applies the similarity measure to the candidate word and the input word to determine their similarity.). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Wu teachings in the Chang system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate detecting a word from a plurality of candidate words taught by Wu in the Chang system to ensure that the selected word or option is within a pool of options that are filtered thus improves the process of selecting desired data or executing the data in an environment. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, Chang in view of Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Chang further teaches wherein the at least one processor further carries out a search query generation process of generating a search query (Fig. 2) including: the extracted word extracted from the target document; and a sentence included in the target document and containing the extracted word ([0028] At 206, in the exemplary embodiment 200, the end-user can select desired text (e.g., comprising desired semantic content) in an initial document 252. As an example, the hospital administrator may identify a document that contains a doctor's recommendation that "the patient return for a check-up with one month." In this example, the administrator can select this portion of the doctor's report as comprising the desired semantic content for their semantic content search. At 208, the initial document with the selected text is run through the classifiers 254… Examiner’s note: The initial document with user select desired text can correspond to search query with extracted word and sentence where it can be used to search for related document), and in the related document retrieval process, the at least one processor retrieves the related document with use of the search query ([0028]: At 208, the initial document with the selected text is run through the classifiers 254…[0029]: In one embodiment, running the document through the classifiers 254 comprises instructing the classifiers to find the selected type of text in a document in the target document database 250. A plurality of trained classifiers 254 can be used concurrently to retrieve potential target documents 256 from the database.).
Regarding claim 4, Chang in view of Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Chang further teaches in the related document retrieval process, the at least one processor retrieves the related document from a corpus including a plurality of documents (Fig. 2 element 250 & [0033] A potential target document 256 is retrieved from the database 250. At 210, it is determined whether the potential target document meets the selection criteria, for example, such that the document comprises selected content that corresponds to the desired semantic content selected by the end-user…Examiner’s note: The database of potential target documents can correspond to a corpus including a plurality of documents); and the corpus includes a reconstructed document generated by reconstruction of a document with use of an important word which is relatively high in importance among words included in the document ([0033] At 210, it is determined whether the potential target document meets the selection criteria, for example, such that the document comprises selected content that corresponds to the desired semantic content selected by the end-user. If the second portion, found in the potential target document 256, has the same semantic content as the first portion, selected by the end-user in the initial document, the end user can indicate that the classifiers have correctly identified the desired semantic content in the target document, and at 212, the classifiers 254 can be updated with this information... Examiner’s note: The potential target documents in the database can comprise content that is used to determine the documents correspond to the desired semantic content selected by the end-user, thus can correspond to reconstruction of a document with important word such as portions of text relevant to the desired semantic content selected by the end-user among words included in the document).
Regarding claim 5, Chang in view of Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Chang further teaches wherein the at least one processor further carries out a candidate word extraction process of extracting, as the candidate words, important words which are relatively high in importance ([0033]: At 210, it is determined whether the potential target document meets the selection criteria, for example, such that the document comprises selected content that corresponds to the desired semantic content selected by the end-user. If the second portion, found in the potential target document 256, has the same semantic content as the first portion, selected by the end-user in the initial document, the end user can indicate that the classifiers have correctly identified the desired semantic content in the target document, and at 212, the classifiers 254 can be updated with this information… Examiner’s note: Portions of the potential target documents are used to determine whether the documents correspond to the desired semantic content selected by the end-user, thus, can be considered as important words among the documents) and are identified on the basis of at least one selected from the group consisting of: structure information indicative of a structure of the related document; and accompanying information which accompanies the related document ([0033]: At 210, it is determined whether the potential target document meets the selection criteria, for example, such that the document comprises selected content that corresponds to the desired semantic content selected by the end-user… [0034]: In this way, for example, the classifiers are trained to identify the appropriate documents that comprise the desired semantic content. Further, after updating the classifiers with an indication that the retrieval was correct, the one or more classifiers can be run over the database again to select a third potential target document 256. This process can be iterated over the database to retrieve a plurality of appropriate target documents… Examiner’s note: The portions of the potential target documents can be identified based on desired content found within the documents which can correspond to structure information indicative of a structure of the related document).
Regarding claim 6, Chang in view of Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Chang further teaches wherein the at least one processor further carries out a score calculation process of calculating, with use of a scorer, a score indicative of a relevance between the target document and each of the candidate words, the scorer being used for calculation of a score indicative of a relevance between a search word and a website in a search engine, and in the related word detection process, the at least one processor detects the related word from among the candidate words on the basis of the score ([0040] In one embodiment, the plurality of documents can be run through the one or more classifiers until a desired document selection accuracy is reached for desired semantic content. For example, a user may wish that the document retrieval is one hundred percent accurate, as the information is critical; or may be satisfied with a ninety percent accuracy where the accuracy is not as important.).
Regarding claim 7, note the rejections of claim 1. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Regarding claim 8, note the rejections of claim 1. The instant claims recite substantially same limitations as the above-rejected claims and are therefore rejected under the same prior-art teachings.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US PGPUB 20110314024) “Chang” in view of Wu et al. (US PGPUB 20050004790) “Wu” and Wurzer et al. (US PGPUB 20110113043) “Wurzer”.
Regarding claim 2, Chang in view of Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Chang in view of Wu does not explicitly teach wherein words constituting the target document are classified in a hierarchical structure; the at least one processor further carrying out: a reception process of receiving designation of a granularity in a hierarchy; and an extraction process of extracting, on the basis of the granularity designated, the extracted word from among the words constituting the target document.
Wurzer teaches wherein words constituting the target document are classified in a hierarchical structure ([0089] In the exemplary embodiment represented in FIG. 1 the creation of a category tree according to the invention with respect to the contents of a data stock is realized… [0093] Words will be searched in the co-occurrence table, which have the highest significance, but do not form any co-occurrences. They form the first level of the category tree… Examiner’s note: A form of category tree is used to categorize words from an amount of words where category tree can correspond to a hierarchical structure ), the at least one processor further carrying out: a reception process of receiving designation of a granularity in a hierarchy; and an extraction process of extracting, on the basis of the granularity designated, the extracted word from among the words constituting the target document ([0102] The 32 less frequent words (the significant ones) will be extracted from each text and memorized in a database. A list of words will be extracted from the amounts of words, which list of words corresponds to the first level of the category tree. As already described with respect to the first method, the list can be consolidated… Examiner’s note: Words can be extracted to correspond to a level of the category tree, thus a granularity in a hierarchy is determined and corresponding words are extracted). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Wurzer teachings in the Chang and Wu system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate extracting words based on granularity of words in a tree taught by Wurzer in the Chang and Wu system to improve the data retrieval process where particular data of desired category or level is received. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Prior Art
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hunter et al. (US PGPUB 20040059726) is directed to identifying one initial document that exemplifies the type of document that is searching for. This initial document is loaded into the framework. The framework determines, to the extent possible, the structure of the document. Specifically, the framework examines the exemplary document, identifying the structural tags (if any) as well as the elements, attributes, and data contained within the tags. As is well-known in the art, structural tags are commands that are inserted into a document that specify how the document, or portions of the document, should be formatted. Once the initial document is loaded and structurally analyzed at process, an initial query is constructed in process. The query created by the search generator is then dispatched to a search engine, which returns a result set that contains one or more individual result set items, each result set item having the selected text fragment.
Barnes et al. (US PGPUB 20240020474) is directed to identify subject matter of text using identified groups and a machine-learning model. Using the combination of the identified subject matter and the machine-learning model, classifications may be adjusted over time. Based on the adjusted classifications, the machine-learning model may be retrained to better classify previously unclassified text. One or more benefits may include better summarization of text documents and/or better training of machine-learning models that are then used to assist in the summarization of the text documents. The resulting classifications may be used to improve resource allocations for future tasks.
Ogilvy et al. (US Patent 8666994) is directed to indexing a plurality of documents, each document comprising a text portion, the method parses the text portion of each of the plurality of documents to form a plurality of respective local document indexes each associated with a respective document, and stores the local document index in a database, Each local document index has a plurality of local text terms and a local weighting associated with each text term From the plurality of local document indexes, forming a global document index associated with each global text term. The global weighting is determined with respect to a parameter associated with a reference global text term. Also, methods and systems for analyzing a text portion, retrieving documents from a database relevant to the text portion and for refining the results of a search are disclosed.
Kim et al (US PGPUB 20230126421) is directed to searching a technical document including data field based on search terms and search year ranges related to a technical field, generating a keyword set using the data field of the searched technical document, scoring a plurality of keywords included in the keyword set, and selecting some of the plurality of keywords, re-searching the technical document related to the technical field, using the selected keywords, scoring the re-searched technical document to derive a representative document representing the technical field, and deriving a representative keyword representing the technical field, using the second data field included in the representative document, wherein the first data field includes a title of the technical document, the second data field includes a summary of the technical document, and the third data field includes keywords of the technical document.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAO DANG VUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1812. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at (571) 272-8352. 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.
/C.D.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 2153 02/12/2026
/KAVITA STANLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153