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 .
Continuity/reexam data
Parent data
19178530 filed 04/14/2025
claims foreign priority to 202410466039.6, filed 04/17/2024
Child data
None
Foreign data
Priority number
Date
Country code
Country
202410466039.6
04/17/2024
CN
CHINA
(*) - Request to retrieve electronic copy of foreign priority from participating receiving offices.
1. Claims presented for examination: 1-20
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
3. The drawing filed on 04/14/2025 is accepted for examination.
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.
4. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (See MPEP 2106)
Claims 1-20 are directed to methods and devices which belong to a statutory class.
As to claims 1-3 and 9-11
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims 1 and 9 recites “performing clustering and summarizing processing on original sentences of the document for at least one round by using a large model to obtain summary sentence for each round and determining the summary sentence of each round as a second information corresponding to the document” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but 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.
This judicial exception, i.e., the mental process, is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite additional elements - “constructing a target database based on a first information set and the second information set corresponding to the document, wherein the first information set includes at least one original sentence corresponding to the document, and the target database includes the first information set and the second information set corresponding to a plurality of documents respectively.” These elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The processing environments perform a generic function of computing/processing queries. Accordingly, this additional element does 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.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
As to claim 9, claim recites “device… comprising one or more processor and computer instructions stored in computer readable medium” which are computer components and these are generic computer components and program which use to perform abstract ideas.
The limitation is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). 2106.05(g)--Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B:
The steps of “constructing a target database based on a first information set and the second information set corresponding to the document, wherein the first information set includes at least one original sentence corresponding to the document, and the target database includes the first information set and the second information set corresponding to a plurality of documents respectively” and remaining steps as a whole does not amount to significantly more.
As to claims 2 , 9 and 16 do not include additional elements to amount to significantly more, rather information are entered by the user.
As to claims 3, 10 and 17 do not include additional element to amount to significantly more, rather the received information is displayed via interface which generic routines.
As to claims 4-8 and 12-16
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims 4 and 12 recites “in response to receiving to-be-retrieved input information, determining a first information set and a second information set corresponding to each document from a target database, the first information set including one original sentence corresponding to the document, the second information set including a summary sentence obtained by at least one round of clustering summarizing processing on the original sentence corresponding to the document, determining a first matching value between the input information and a first target document corresponding to the first information set, and a second matching value between the input information and a second target document corresponding to the second information set ” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but 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.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
As to claim 12, claim recites “device… comprising one or more processor and computer instructions stored in computer readable medium” which are computer components and these are generic computer components and program which use to perform abstract ideas.
The limitation is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). 2106.05(g)--Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
As to claims 5 and 13, the limitation “determining a first matching value between the input information and a first target document corresponding to the first information set, and a second matching value between the input information and a second target document corresponding to the second information set; and determining at least one third target document corresponding to the input information based on the first matching value and the second matching value, therein the first target document is the same as or different from the second target document, and the third target document belongs to the first target document or the second target document” which are a processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but 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.
As to claims 6 and 14, the limitation “determining a first sub-matching value of each original sentence in the first information set corresponding to each document and the input information; and determining a target original sentence based on the first sub-matching value of each original sentence; and determining the first matching value between the first target document and the input information based on the first sub-matching value corresponding to the target original sentence belonging to the same first target document” which are a processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but 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.
As to claims 7 and 15, the limitation “determining a second sub-matching value of each summary sentence in the second information set corresponding to each document and the input information; determining a target summary sentence based on the second sub-matching value of each summary sentence; and determining the second matching value between the second target document and the input information based on the second sub-matching value corresponding to the target summary sentence belonging to the same second target document” which are a processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but 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.
As to claims 8 and 16, the limitation “determining a first document set based on the first matching value between each first target document and the input information; determining a second document set based on the second matching value between each second target document and the input information; and determining at least one third target document corresponding to the input information based on the first document set and the second document set” which are a processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0168984 A1).
As to claim 1, Kim discloses a method for establishing a database comprising:
Obtaining a document (document) (paragraph 0037);
Performing clustering and summarizing processing on original sentences of the document for at least one round by using a large model to obtain summary sentences for each round (abstractive summarization-based summary) (paragraph 0046);
Determining the summary sentence of each round as a second information set corresponding to the document (extractive summarization-based on the second summarization vector) (paragraph 0046); and
Kim does not explicitly discloses constructing a target database on a first information set and the second information set corresponding to the document, wherein the first information set includes at least one original sentence corresponding to the document, and the target database includes the first information set and the second information set corresponding to a plurality of document respectively. However, Kim discloses the acquiring of a first document candidate group may further include: calculating first similarity sore between the user inquiry vector and sentence vector extracted from a passage of the document stored in the retrieval database,
As to claim 2, Kim discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising:
Performing sentence segmentation processing on the document to obtain at least one original sentence corresponding to the document (the apparatus 1000 for summarizing a document may be implemented to segment each document included in the original data source…) (paragraph 0064); and
Determining at least one of the original sentences as the first information set corresponding to the document (the apparatus 1000 for summarizing a document may be implemented to segment each document included in the original data source…) (paragraph 0064).
As to claim 3, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein, performing clustering and summarizing processing on the original sentence of the document for at least one round by using the large model to obtain summary sentences for each round includes:
Using an embedding model to extract features from the original sentences of the to-be-processed document in the first round to obtain a feature vector corresponding to each original sentence (extraction and summarization document document) (paragraph 0045);
Summarizing each original sentence in each cluster based on the large model to obtain at least one summary sentence corresponding to the first round (document summarization model) (paragraph 0046);
Using the summary sentence corresponding to the first round as the to-be-processed original sentence in a second round, and performing the second ground of clustering and summarizing processing to obtain at least one summary sentence corresponding to the second round (acquiring a second summarization vector through a second output layer…) (paragraph 0046); and
Interactively executing the clustering and summarizing processing steps until a target stopping condition is reached, the target stopping condition including that a position of the cluster center of the cluster not long changes, or a number of execution of the clustering and summarizing processing steps reaches a target number of execution (correct answer information and each sentence included in the original document) (paragraph 0046).
Claim 9 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Kim discloses a device (apparatus 1000) (paragraph 0054) for establishing a database (retrieval database) (paragraph 0055) comprising one or more processors (processor 1030, paragraph 0054) and computer program instructions (program) (paragraph 0043) stored in computer readable storage medium (a computer-readable recording medium) (paragraph 0043), when executed by the one or more processors (processor 1030, paragraph 0054), the computer instructions (program) (paragraph 0043) implementing a method for establishing the database (retrieval database) (paragraph 0055).
Claim 10 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 2.
Claim 11 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Kim discloses an information retrieval method comprising:
In response to receiving to-be-retrieved input information, determining a firs information set and a second information set corresponding to each document from a target database, the first information set including one original sentence corresponding to the document (a sentence vector extracted from a passage of the document stored in the retrieval database) (paragraph 0037), the second information set including a summary sentence obtained by at least one round of clustering summarizing processing on the original sentence corresponding to the document (sentence vector summarization the passage of the document stored in the retrieval database) (paragraph 0037);
Determining a first matching value between the input information and a first target document corresponding to the first information set (a step S1220 of calculating a second similarity score between the user input vector and sentence vector summarizing the passage of the document stored in the retrieval database) (paragraph 0108), and a second matching value between the input information and a second target document corresponding to the second information set (a step S1220 of calculating a second similarity score between the user input vector and sentence vector summarizing the passage of the document stored in the retrieval database) (paragraph 0108); and
Kim does not explicitly disclose determining at least one third target document corresponding to the input information based on the first matching value and the second matching value, therein the first target document is the same as or different from the second target document, and the third target document belongs to the first target document or the second target document. However, Kim discloses the step S1200 of acquiring the first document candidate group according to an embodiment of the present application may further include a step S1200 of calculating a first similarity score between the user inquiry vector and a sentence vector extracted from a massage of the document stored in the retrieval database 1100, a step S1220 of calculating a second similarity score between the user input vector and sentence vector summarizing the passage of the document stored in the retrieval database, a step S1230 of calculating a third similarity score between the question vector generated from the passage stored in the retrieval database and the user inquiry vector through a generation model, and a step S1240 of calculating a firs weight score based on a first similarity score, the second similarity score, and third similarity score and determining a first document candidate group based on the calculated first weighted score (paragraph 0108). This suggests matching of scores for matching the documents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify similar scores for matching document as to determining at least one third target document corresponding to the input information based on the first matching value and the second matching value, therein the first target document is the same as or different from the second target document, and the third target document belongs to the first target document or the second target document in order to provide documents matching.
As to claim 5, Kim discloses the information retrieval method of claim 4 further comprising:
using the corresponding at least one third target document as prompt information,
processing the prompt information and the input information through the large model to
obtain corresponding target search result information (model) (….calculating a third similarity score between question vector generated from the passage stored in the retrieval database through a generation model…) (paragraph 0108).
As to claim 6, Kim discloses the information retrieval method of claim 4, wherein determining the first matching value between the input information and the first target document corresponding to the first information set includes:
determining a first sub-matching (text matching includes sub-matching) (paragraph 0072) value of each original sentence in the first information set corresponding to each document and the input information a step S1200 of calculating a first similarity score between the user inquiry vector and a sentence vector extracted from a massage of the document stored in the retrieval database 1100) (paragraph 0108); and
determining a target original sentence based on the first sub-matching value of each
original sentence (a step S1200 of calculating a first similarity score between the user inquiry vector and a sentence vector extracted from a massage of the document stored in the retrieval database 1100) (paragraph 0108); and
determining the first matching value between the first target document and the input
information based on the first sub-matching value corresponding to the target original
sentence belonging to the same first target document (a step S1200 of calculating a first similarity score between the user inquiry vector and a sentence vector extracted from a massage of the document stored in the retrieval database 1100) (paragraph 0108).
As to claim 7, Kim discloses the information retrieval method of claim 4, wherein determining the second matching value of the second target document corresponding to the input information and the second information set includes:
determining a second sub-matching value (text matching includes sub-matching) of each summary sentence in the second information set corresponding to each document and the input information (a step S1220 of calculating a second similarity score between the user input vector and sentence vector summarizing the passage of the document stored in the retrieval database) (paragraph 0108);
determining a target summary sentence based on the second sub-matching value of
each summary sentence (a step S1220 of calculating a second similarity score between the user input vector and sentence vector summarizing the passage of the document stored in the retrieval database) (paragraph 0108); and
determining the second matching value between the second target document and the
input information based on the second sub-matching value corresponding to the target summary sentence belonging to the same second target document (a step S1220 of calculating a second similarity score between the user input vector and sentence vector summarizing the passage of the document stored in the retrieval database) (paragraph 0108).
As to claim 8, Kim discloses the information retrieval method of claim 6, wherein determining at least one third target document corresponding to the input information based on the first matching value and the second matching value includes:
determining a first document set based on the first matching value between each first
target document and the input information (a step S1200 of calculating a first similarity score between the user inquiry vector and a sentence vector extracted from a massage of the document stored in the retrieval database 1100) (paragraph 0108);
determining a second document set based on the second matching value between each
second target document and the input information (a step S1220 of calculating a second similarity score between the user input vector and sentence vector summarizing the passage of the document stored in the retrieval database) (paragraph 0108); and
determining at least one third target document corresponding to the input information based on the first document set and the second document set (third similarity score and determining a first document candidate group based on the calculated first weighted score (paragraph 0108).
Claim 12 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Kim discloses a device (apparatus 1000) (paragraph 0054) for establishing a database (retrieval database) (paragraph 0055) comprising one or more processors (processor 1030, paragraph 0054) and computer program instructions (program) (paragraph 0043) stored in computer readable storage medium (a computer-readable recording medium) (paragraph 0043), when executed by the one or more processors (processor 1030, paragraph 0054), the computer instructions implemented the method for establishing database (retrieval database) (paragraph 0055).
Claim 13 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 5.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 6.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 7.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same reason a to claim 8.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154