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 .
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims are directed to organizing, processing and generating content (synthetic pairs) based on rules and a user input. The claims fall under the mental processing along with methods for organizing and dividing information and content generation workflows. The claims recite receiving, organizing, and outputting data, which is very close to generic data processing on a computer, which is non-statutory.
The present claim language under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mental processing and recites generic computer components, which all falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which 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, 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 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 elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
According to Step 1, it includes determining whether the claims fall within a statutory category. The claims include a method, therefore the claims fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong one, includes evaluating whether the claims recite a judicial exception. The claims recite a judicial exception, therefore an evaluation is done to determine if the claims fit into one of the categories. As explained, the claims fit into the mental processing concept. Prong 2B is used to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. As explained the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which 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, 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. Therefore, the claims are non-statutory.
The dependent claims recite similar language, such as classifying, generating, extracting, receiving and applying data, which is all part of the mental processing/organizing human activity category and is non-statutory.
Furthermore, although the claims recite preparing for training the claims, the claims do not explicitly recite how the trained data is used for a particular purpose. The claims are presented at a high level and do not meaningfully limit the claim to a specific, unconventional improvement in computer or vehicle technology. The claims do not recite a particular hardware architecture, specialized data structures, concrete signal-processing steps, defined latency or safety constraints, or a specific machine-learning architecture or training regime that produces a technological improvement. The mere mention of training is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The claims do not supply an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed elements are routine, conventional data-processing activities implemented on generic computing hardware.
The remaining dependent claims recite similar language, including mathematical concepts and mental-process-like steps which is non-statutory, as explained above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over by Kundu et al. (PGPUB 2024/0071047), hereinafter referenced as Kundu.
Regarding claim 1, Kundu discloses a computer-implemented method for training a domain-specific translation model for product naming conventions, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by the domain-specific translation model, one or more of a plurality of synthetic input-output pairs comprising a plurality of standardized product descriptors (p. 0005, 0032-0034, 0077; standardized form, as the canonical reference ontology based on the standard schema, based on his product information form, as the product descriptors, comprising all the information on the form, each form domain-specific);
preparing, by the domain-specific translation model, the one or more of the plurality of synthetic input-output pairs for training the domain-specific translation model (p. 0005, 0032-0034, 0077; paired key data with variants discussion); and
generating, by the domain-specific translation model, a plurality of mappings of proprietary descriptors to canonical references based on the one or more of the plurality of synthetic input-output pairs (similar to 1 with automatic variant, and corresponding keys/text for the variant, as the input, for the input key, p. 0041, 0051-0062, 0072-0075).
Regarding claim 3, Kundu discloses a method further comprising:
receiving a newly generated plurality of synthetic input-output pairs and user feedback on suggested mappings (newly added with feedback; p. 0024, 0055);
preparing the newly generated plurality of synthetic input-output pairs and the user feedback for training the domain-specific translation model (newly added to domain; p. 0024, 0055); and
learning a plurality of mappings of proprietary descriptors to canonical references based on the newly generated plurality of synthetic input-output pairs and the user feedback (p. 0005, 0032-0034, 0077; standardized form, as the canonical reference ontology based on the standard schema, based on his product information form, as the product descriptors, comprising all the information on the form, each form domain-specific).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundu in view of Walters et al. (PGPUB 2022/0284280), hereinafter referenced as Walters.
Regarding claim 2, Kundu discloses a method as described above, but does not specifically teach a method further comprising:
validating labels of the plurality of synthetic input-output pairs and the labeled real-world data; and
dividing the plurality of synthetic input-output pairs and the labeled real-world data into a first group for training the domain-specific translation model and a second group for validating the domain-specific translation model.
Walters discloses a method comprising:
validating labels of the plurality of synthetic input-output pairs and the labeled real-world data (real-world; p. 0016-0017); and
dividing the plurality of synthetic input-output pairs and the labeled real-world data into a first group for training the domain-specific translation model and a second group for validating the domain-specific translation model (dividing; p. 0016-0017, 0051-0052, 0067), to improve quality and quantity of data that is available for training.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to assist with improving accuracy.
Regarding claim 4, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Walters discloses a method further comprising:
receiving, by the domain-specific translation model, labeled real-world data comprising a plurality of standardized product descriptors (p. 0016-0017, 0047, 0051-0052);
preparing, by the domain-specific translation model, the labeled real-world data for training the domain-specific translation model (p. 0016-0017, 0047, 0051-0052); and
generating, by the domain-specific translation model, a plurality of mappings of proprietary descriptors to canonical references based on the labeled real-world data (p. 0016-0017, 0047, 0051-0052).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This information has been detailed in the PTO 892 attached (Notice of References Cited).
Borrel et al. discloses cross domain collaborative data log.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAKIEDA R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30a-2:30p.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571.272.5551. 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.
/JAKIEDA R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights