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 is Non-Final Office Action in response to application and amendment filed on February 18, 2025. Claims 1-7 are pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the IDS filed on February 18, 2025 and February 27, 2026 have been considered and entered into record. Copies of the signed or initialed IDSs are hereby attached.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental process without significantly more. The claims recite “receiving selection of one or a plurality of extracted words among a plurality of extracted words extracted from a target document and causing an output apparatus to output a related word related to the target document and extracted from a related document, the related document being related to each of the one or plurality of extracted words selected and being detected by a retrieval with use of the each of the one or plurality of extracted words”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps can be performed manually in human mind. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim here merely uses the apparatus or computer or machine as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
ANALYSIS under Revised Guidance of 2019 PEG:
Statutory Category:
The claims 1-7 are directed to one of the four statutory category (claims 1-5 an apparatus, claim 6 a method or a process, and claim 7 a computer-readable, non-transitory storage medium).
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is there a Judicial Exception (e.g. abstract idea)? (See MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claim 1 recites, at its core, the limitations directed to receiving a selection of extracted words extracted from a target document (reception process) and retrieving related documents or words (output control process). These limitations describe retrieving related documents or words and performing functional and mental tasks that can be characterized as mental processes. The recited steps can be routinely performed without a computer by reading a document, selecting key terms or keywords, searching a library or database using those terms to find related documents, and selecting related works from those documents. Claim 1 provides no technical detail regarding how these steps are performed beyond reciting generic processor components. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under step 2A, prong 1.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application? (See MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(2), 2106.04(d)). To pass Prong 2, the claim must apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way (e.g., by improving computer functionality or another technology).
Claim 1 recites additional elements such as a processing apparatus, a processor, and an output apparatus. These elements are generic computer components performing generic functions (e.g., “receiving”, “causing an output apparatus to output”). The claim does not recite any improvement to technical functioning of a computer, network, or hardware system itself. The claim also does not specify a particular technical mechanism or algorithmic implementation for how words or keywords are extracted, how relevance is calculated, or how the retrieval engine operates. It merely states the desired result (e.g. functional “what” rather than a specific technical “how”). Accordingly, the claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, rather than improving the computer itself. Therefore, the additional elements does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fails to meet step 2A, prong 2.
Step 2B: significantly more or amounting to an incentive concept. (See MPEP§2106.05).
Claim 1 recites additional elements, such as generic hardware components including “an information processing apparatus”, “at least one processor”, and an “output apparatus.” These elements are high-level, generic computer hardware components. The claimed activities, such as performing search and retrieval functions based on user-selected words constitute well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. Simply executing an abstract concept on generic computer hardware does not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Furthermore, adding generic “output control” or user selection mechanisms amount to conventional data manipulation and display functions. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim fails under step 2B because the mere implementation of the abstract idea on a computer does not provide significantly more.
Dependent claim 2 recites “…provide collective display output of a plurality of extracted words belonging to the same classification among the plurality of extracted words extracted from the target document; and receives collective selection of the plurality of extracted words of which the collective display output is provided.” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 3 recites “where a plurality of extracted words are classified in a hierarchical structure; receives designation of a granularity in a hierarchy” abstract idea under step 2A(i) and “causes the display apparatus to provide collective display output of extracted words belonging to the same classification in the granularity designated” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 4 recites “…detects detecting, as the related word and from among candidate words extracted from a plurality of related documents detected by retrievals with use of the respective plurality of extracted words collectively selected, at least one selected from the group consisting of: a candidate word extracted in common from the plurality of related documents; and a candidate word selected on the basis of a score indicative of a relevance between the target document and each of the candidate words” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 5 recites “output a sentence together with the related word, the sentence being extracted from the target document and containing the one or plurality of extracted words” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 6 is rejected due to the similar analysis of claim 1.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is there a Judicial Exception (e.g. abstract idea)? (See MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claim 7 recites, at its core, the limitations directed to receiving a selection of one or more extracted words extracted from a target document, using the selected words to retrieve related documents, and outputting a related word extracted from the related documents. These limitations describe operations that can reasonably be characterized as mental processes because a person could perform substantially the same steps by reading a document, selecting words, searching for related documents using those words, and identifying related words from the retrieved related documents. The recited steps can be routinely performed without a computer by reading a document, selecting key terms or keywords, searching a library or database using those terms to find related documents, and selecting related works from those documents. Claim 7 provides no technical detail regarding how these steps are performed beyond reciting generic processor components. Accordingly, claim 7 recites an abstract idea under step 2A, prong 1.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application? (See MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(2), 2106.04(d)). To pass Prong 2, the claim must apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way (e.g., by improving computer functionality or another technology).
The claim recites additional elements, such as a computer-readable storage medium and a program that causes a computer to perform the reception and output control functions. However, the claim does not specify a particular technical mechanism for extracting words or keywords, determining which documents are related, performing the retrieval, determining which words are related, or technically improving the computer, retrieval system, or other technology. Accordingly, the claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, rather than improving the computer itself. Therefore, the additional elements does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fails to meet step 2A, prong 2.
Step 2B: significantly more or amounting to an incentive concept. (See MPEP§2106.05).
Claim 7 recites additional elements, such as a computer-readable, non-transitory storage medium, a program, a reception means for receiving selection of extracted words, and an output control means for causing an output apparatus to output a related word. These elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer functionality. The additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites a computer-readable, non-transitory storage medium storing a program, a reception means for receiving a selection of extracted words, and an output control means for causing an output apparatus to output a related word, These elements, as recited, perform generic computer functions of receiving, retrieving, processing, and outputting information. The claim does not recite any specific or unconventional technical implementation for extracting the words, identifying related documents, performing the retrieval, determining the related words, or controlling the output apparatus, Nor does the claim recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer, retrieval system, or other technology. Rather, the additional elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer components and functions. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim fails under step 2B because the mere implementation of the abstract idea on a computer does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1-7 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20110314024 A1) in view of Wu et al. (US 20050004790 A1).
Regarding claim 1, an information processing apparatus, comprising at least one processor (¶[0028] and [0045], Chang), the at least one processor carrying out:
a reception means that receives process of receiving selection of one or a plurality of extracted words among a plurality of extracted words extracted from a target document (Fig.1; ¶[0016], [0020-[0022] and [0045], Chang, i.e., 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. Therefore, 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
an output control means that causes process of causing an output apparatus to output a related word related to the target document and extracted from a related document, the related document being related to each of the one or plurality of extracted words selected and being detected by a retrieval with use of the each of the one or plurality of extracted words (¶[0020-[0022] and [0033]-[0034], Chang, i.e., 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 and retrieve appropriate target document corresponding to a retrieval with use of the each of the one or plurality of extracted words).
To clarify the language of “extracted words among a plurality of extracted words extracted from a target document,” although as stated above extracted words among a plurality of extracted words extracted from a target document (Fig.1; ¶[0016], [0020-[0022] and [0045], Chang).
However, Wu discloses extracted words among a plurality of extracted words extracted from a target document (¶[0050] and [0065]-[0069], Wu, i.e., 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 to be 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 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 2, Chang/Wu combination discloses the output apparatus is a display apparatus; in the output control means process, the at least one processor causes the display apparatus to provide collective display output of a plurality of extracted words belonging to the same classification among the plurality of extracted words extracted from the target document (¶[0023]-[0024], Chang); and in the reception means process, the at least one processor receives collective selection of the plurality of extracted words of which the collective display output is provided (¶[0023]-[0024] and [0033]-[0034], Chang).
Regarding claim 4, Chang/Wu combination discloses receives in the reception process the collective selection of the plurality of extracted words, detects detecting, as the related word (¶[0050] and [0065]-[0069], Wu) and from among candidate words extracted from a plurality of related documents detected by retrievals with use of the respective plurality of extracted words collectively selected (¶[0050] and [0065]-[0069], Wu), at least one selected from the group consisting of: a candidate word extracted in common from the plurality of related documents; and a candidate word selected on the basis of a score indicative of a relevance between the target document and each of the candidate words (¶[0050] and [0065]-[0069], Wu).
Regarding claim 5, Chang/Wu combination discloses output a sentence together with the related word, the sentence being extracted from the target document and containing the one or plurality of extracted words (¶[0050] and [0066]-[0067], Wu).
Regarding claim 6, Chang discloses a related word output method, comprising: receiving selection of one or a plurality of extracted words among a plurality of extracted words extracted from a target document (Fig.1; ¶[0016], [0020-[0022] and [0045], Chang, i.e., 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. Therefore, 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
an output apparatus to output a related word related to the target document and extracted from a related document, the related document being related to each of the one or plurality of extracted words selected and being detected by a retrieval with use of the each of the one or plurality of extracted words (¶[0020-[0022] and [0033]-[0034], Chang, i.e., 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 and retrieve appropriate target document corresponding to a retrieval with use of the each of the one or plurality of extracted words).
To clarify the language of “extracted words among a plurality of extracted words extracted from a target document,” although as stated above extracted words among a plurality of extracted words extracted from a target document (Fig.1; ¶[0016], [0020-[0022] and [0045], Chang).
However, Wu discloses extracted words among a plurality of extracted words extracted from a target document (¶[0050] and [0065]-[0069], Wu, i.e., 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 to be 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 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 7, Chang discloses a computer-readable, non-transitory storage medium storing a related word output program for causing a computer to function as: a reception means that receiving selection of one or a plurality of extracted words among a plurality of extracted words extracted from a target document (Fig.1; ¶[0016], [0020-[0022] and [0045], Chang, i.e., 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. Therefore, 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
an output control means that causes process of causing an output apparatus to output a related word related to the target document and extracted from a related document, the related document being related to each of the one or plurality of extracted words selected and being detected by a retrieval with use of the each of the one or plurality of extracted words (¶[0020-[0022] and [0033]-[0034], Chang, i.e., 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 and retrieve appropriate target document corresponding to a retrieval with use of the each of the one or plurality of extracted words).
To clarify the language of “extracted words among a plurality of extracted words extracted from a target document,” although as stated above extracted words among a plurality of extracted words extracted from a target document (Fig.1; ¶[0016], [0020-[0022] and [0045], Chang).
However, Wu discloses extracted words among a plurality of extracted words extracted from a target document (¶[0050] and [0065]-[0069], Wu, i.e., 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 to be 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 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20110314024 A1) in view of Wu et al. (US 20050004790 A1) and further in view of .
Regarding claim 3, Chang/Wu combination discloses wherein a plurality of extracted words are classified in a hierarchical structure (¶[0023]-[0024], Chang); However, Chang/Wu combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the reception at least one processor receives designation of a granularity in a hierarchy. Wurzer discloses receiving designation of a granularity in a hierarchy; and in the output control means process, the at least one processor causes the display apparatus to provide collective display output of extracted words belonging to the same classification in the granularity designated (¶[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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Osuala et al. (US 11983208 B2) disclose selection-based searching using concatenated word and context.
Zhou et al. (US 20230099588 A1) disclose identification of permissions-aware enterprise-specific term substitutions.
Aarskog (US 8265925 B2) discloses method and apparatus for textual exploration discovery.
Musgrove et al. (US 20060235843 A1) disclose method and system for semantic search and retrieval of electronic documents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH B THAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4029. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7-4:30.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/HANH B THAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
September 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights