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
This Application claims priority as a 371 of PCT/JP2024/013984 filed 4 April 2024 and foreign priority to JP2023-069331 filed 20 April 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 13 November 2025 and 28 August 2025 are 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Determining whether claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 involves a two-step analysis. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to the statutory categories of invention. Step 2 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2 is divided into two prongs, with the first prong having a part 1 and part 2. See MPEP 2106.
Claim 1 recites a training data correction device for correcting training data including sets of categories with a hierarchical structure and documents belonging to the categories, the training data correction device comprising processing circuitry configured to: acquire category information indicating a first category, which is one category, and a second category, which is a category having a hierarchical relationship with the first category and to which a document included in training data that should belong to the first category erroneously belongs or is likely to erroneously belong; and identify a feature term in a document that is included in the training data and that belongs to the first category indicated in the acquired category information and delete, from the training data, a set of documents including the identified term among documents included in the training data and belonging to a second category indicated in the category information.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of correcting training data including sets of categories with a hierarchical structure and documents belonging to the categories, acquire category information indicating a first category, which is one category, and a second category, which is a category having a hierarchical relationship with the first category and to which a document included in training data that should belong to the first category erroneously belongs or is likely to erroneously belong; and identify a feature term in a document that is included in the training data and that belongs to the first category indicated in the acquired category information and delete, from the training data, a set of documents including the identified term among documents included in the training data and belonging to a second category indicated in the category information, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) except for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, these limitations depict a person looking at two versions of a taxonomy and seeing that a new child category has been added. The person can then identify documents that should be classified in the new child category instead of the parent category. The person can then delete the original classification. If limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind except for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of a training data correction device and processing circuitry. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of acquiring, identifying and deleting) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of a training data correction device and processing circuitry. The elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of acquiring, identifying and deleting) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer which does not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 3, 6 and 8 are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental Processes.” Each claim fails to provide any additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 4, 5, 7 and 9 are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental Processes.” The additional elements of each of the claims are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity which does not provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No 7,376,635 to Porcari et al (hereafter Porcari).
Referring to claim 1, Porcari discloses a training data correction device for correcting training data including sets of categories with a hierarchical structure and documents belonging to the categories (see column 3, lines 7-21), the training data correction device comprising processing circuitry configured to:
category information indicating a first category [subclass], which is one category, and a second category [parent of the subclass], which is a category having a hierarchical relationship with the first category and to which a document included in training data that should belong to the first category erroneously belongs or is likely to erroneously belong (see column 4, lines 23-38 – One advantage of the system is that subclasses and reclassification may be performed automatically to create a new subclass.); and
identify a feature term in a document that is included in the training data and that belongs to the first category indicated in the acquired category information and delete, from the training data a set of documents including the identified term among documents included in the training data and belonging to a second category indicated in the category information (see column 3, line 46 – column 4, line 13; column 4, lines 23-38 – In step 54, selected documents from the class to be divided are selected for the subclass. In step 56 a new theme score for the new subclass represented by the selected documents is performed. The other documents in the class may be re-evaluated to determine if they should be included in the new subclass.).
Referring to claim 2, Porcari discloses the training data correction device according to claim 1, wherein the hierarchical structure of the categories changes over time (see column 4, lines 23-33 – adding a new subclass).
Referring to claim 3, Porcari discloses the training data correction device according to claim 1, wherein the second category is hierarchically higher than the first category (see column 3, lines 7-21; column 4, lines 23-33 – The first category is a subclass of the second category.).
Referring to claim 4, Porcari discloses the training data correction device according to claim 1 , wherein the processing circuitry is configured to delete the training data when a misclassification rate of a document classification model that classifies the category to which any input document belongs and that has been trained on the basis of the training data satisfies a predetermined criterion (see column 4, lines 14-22 – To enhance the integrity of the system, a review of misclassified documents may also be performed. When searchers or other users of the information in the system find documents that have been misclassified they may be identified and provided a negative weight in the system. This negative weight will prevent like documents from being classified in the similar wrong class.).
Referring to claim 5, Porcari discloses the training data correction device according to claim 4, wherein cross-validation is performed in learning based on the training data (see column 4, lines 14-22).
Referring to claim 6, Porcari discloses the training data correction device according to claim 4, wherein the misclassification rate is a probability that a document that should belong to the first category is erroneously classified as belonging to the second category (see column 4, lines 14-22; column 10, line 65 – column 11, line 9; column 12, line 28 – line 38).
Referring to claim 7, Porcari discloses the training data correction device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to acquire the category information indicating the first category and the second category when a misclassification rate, which is a probability that a document that should belong to the first category will be erroneously classified as belonging to the second category within a document classification model that classifies the category to which any input document belongs and has been trained on the basis of the training data, satisfies the predetermined criterion (see column 4, lines 14-22; column 10, line 65 – column 11, line 9; column 12, line 28 – line 38).
Referring to claim 8, Porcari discloses the training data correction device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to identify a feature term in a document included in the training data and belonging to the first category indicated in the acquired category information and to delete, from the training data, a set of documents including the identified term and a name indicating the first category among documents included in the training data and belonging to the second category indicated in the category information (see column 3, line 46 – column 4, line 38).
Referring to claim 9, Porcari discloses the training data correction device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to train and output a document classification model that classifies the category to which any input document belongs, on the basis of the deleted training data (see column 8, lines 26-67).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPub 2016/00062993 to Lee et al teaches the re-classification of documents when a classification hierarchy changes
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY LOVEL WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2750. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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, 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.
/KIMBERLY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights