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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites:
“constructing a matrix, wherein each of elements in the matrix indicates a relationship between a first text corresponding to a row to which the element belongs and a second text corresponds to a column to which the element belong”
“determining a first dispersion of the matrix based on the relationships indicated by the elements in the matrix”
“determining a first concentration of the matrix based on the relationships indicated by the elements in the matrix and first texts corresponding to rows in the matrix”
“determining the first texts as training samples in response to the first dispersion of the matrix being greater than a first threshold and the first concentration of the matrix being greater than a second threshold”
The limitations “constructing a matrix, wherein each of elements in the matrix indicates a relationship between a first text corresponding to a row to which the element belongs and a second text corresponds to a column to which the element belong” and “determining a first dispersion of the matrix based on the relationships indicated by the elements in the matrix” and “determining a first concentration of the matrix based on the relationships indicated by the elements in the matrix and first texts corresponding to rows in the matrix”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance mathematical algorithms/equations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations “determining the first texts as training samples in response to the first dispersion of the matrix being greater than a first threshold and the first concentration of the matrix being greater than a second threshold”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but from the recitation of implementing it on generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a user comparing values to a first and second threshold in order to make a judgement about whether the first text qualifies as training samples. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “an electronic device.” This limitation merely utilizes generic computer device as a computer tool to implement the discussed mathematical algorithms and mental processes. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “electronic device” is recited at a high level of generality and is merely a computer tool to carry out the mathematical algorithms and mental processes. Claim 1, as a whole, is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements are not sufficient to overcome the essentially mental nature of these claims. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 and Claim 15 are similarly rejected as Claim 1 above.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 depend on claims 1, 8, 15 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15. Therefore, claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 recite the same abstract idea practically being performed in the mind, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2, 9, 16 additionally recite “wherein the relationship between the first text and the second text represents whether the second text is in the first text.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception that does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claims merely associate the mental process with a particular data source or particular type of data. This limitation is merely an incidental or token additional to the claim that does not alter or affect the mental process steps performed. Claims 2, 9, 16 are ineligible.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception that does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claims merely limit the mental process to a particular data source or particular type of data. Claims 2, 9, 16 are not patent eligible.
Claims 3-7, 10-14, 17-20 additionally recite:
“wherein determining the first dispersion of the matrix based on the relationships indicated by the elements in the matrix comprises: for each of the elements in the matrix, determining a second dispersion of the element based on the relationship indicated by the element and a relationship indicated by an adjacent element of the element; determining a third dispersion of the matrix based on the second dispersions of the elements in the matrix; and determining the first dispersion of the matrix based on the third dispersion of the matrix and a preset value of the relationships indicated by the elements in the matrix”
“wherein the adjacent element comprises a row-adjacent element and a column-adjacent element, and determining the second dispersion of the element based on the relationship indicated by the element and the relationship indicated by the adjacent element of the element comprises: comparing the relationship indicated by the element and a relationship indicated by the row-adjacent element to obtain a first comparison result, wherein the first comparison result represents whether the relationship indicated by the element is identical to the relationship indicated by the row-adjacent element; comparing the relationship indicated by the element and a relationship indicated by the column-adjacent element to obtain a second comparison result, wherein the second comparison result represents whether the relationship indicated by the element is identical to the relationship indicated by the column-adjacent element; and determining the second dispersion of the element based on the first comparison result and the second comparison result”
“wherein determining the second dispersion of the element based on the first comparison result and the second comparison result comprises: determining a first row-indication value in response to the first comparison result representing that the relationship indicated by the element is identical to the relationship indicated by the row-adjacent element; determining a second row-indication value in response to the first comparison result representing that the relationship indicated by the element is not identical to the relationship indicated by the row-adjacent element; determining a first column-indication value in response to the second comparison result representing that the relationship indicated by the element is identical to the relationship indicated by the column-adjacent element; determining a second column-indication value in response to the second comparison result representing that the relationship indicated by the element is not identical to the relationship indicated by the column-adjacent element; and determining the second dispersion of the element based on the first row-indication value, the second row-indication value, the first column-indication value and the second column-indication value”
“wherein determining the first concentration of the matrix based on the relationships indicated by the elements in the matrix and the first texts corresponding to the rows in the matrix comprises: determining a concentration of each of the rows of the matrix based on relationships indicated by elements in the row of the matrix; determining a second concentration of the matrix based on the concentrations of the rows of the matrix; obtaining a total number of elements, each of which indicates a relationship that the second text is in the first text; and determining the first concentration of the matrix based on the second concentration and the total number” and
“wherein determining the concentration of each of the rows of the matrix based on the relationships indicated by the elements in the row of the matrix comprises: for the relationship indicated by each element in each of the rows of the matrix, in response to the relationship indicating that a second text corresponding to a column to which the element belongs is in a first text corresponding to a row to which the element belongs, determining an indication value of the element based on a value of the element; determining a concentration of the element based on the indication value of the element and a number of occurrences of the element in the row; and determining the concentration of the row based on the concentrations of the elements in the row.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent implementing mathematical algorithms. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 3-7, 10-14, 17-20 recite an abstract idea and is ineligible.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent a mathematical algorithms/equations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical algorithms, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. An additional abstract idea is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 3-7, 10-14, 17-20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Margolin et al., US 2025/0245436.
Tacchi et al., US 9,715,495.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENSEN HU whose telephone number is (571)270-3803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 PT.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/JENSEN HU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights