DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 have been examined.
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 Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because claims 1 and 4 have multiple periods in their claim structures. Note that each Claim should be a single sentence where limitations may be separated by semicolons. The periods in independent Claim 1 are incorporated by reference to the dependent clams.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement (that is, they contain “new matter”.) The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Using decision trees to detect outliers is new matter to the Specification. Specifically, Claim 1 recites:
…validate user input by using a parent decision tree to detect outliers based on language, writing hand, and manuscript type at the manuscript level.
If the undated manuscript is classified as an outlier, further processing for that manuscript is not allowed…
…validate the model at the attribute value level to detect outliers and avoid processing attribute values found in only one manuscript
If the attribute value is classified as an outlier, further processing for that attribute value is not allowed…
Note that these deficiencies are incorporated by reference to the dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The invention, as taught in Claims 1-4, is directed to “mental steps” and “mathematical steps” without significantly more.
The claims recite:
• visual paleographical, orthographical, and codicological attribute values of a manually-created, structured, decision tree based, omnitextual model
• trained on period- specific scribal and material patterns
• structured, observational data
• attribute values
• manuscript number, folio number, and line number
• validate user input by using a parent decision tree
• The parent decision tree acts as an initial filter
• validate the model at the attribute value level
• Comparing both inputs, attribute values from the omnitextual model and user-identified, structured attribute values from the undated manuscript
• a rule-based evaluation engine
• Generating, … a predicted date range and its associated vote proportion for an undated manuscript
• decision tree ensemble processing for quantitative analysis of visual, omnitextual attribute values found in each time period in the omnitextual model
• identify the evidence for the date produced that was previously unknown by the user
• applying a rule-based model, and consistent, non-interpretive logic to structured user observations
Claim 1
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “1. A computer-implemented method of dating ancient manuscripts, comprising an interactive system…” Therefore, it is a “method” (or “process”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES.”
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 1 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 1 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• visual paleographical, orthographical, and codicological attribute values of a manually-created, structured, decision tree based, omnitextual model
• trained on period- specific scribal and material patterns
• structured, observational data
• attribute values
• manuscript number, folio number, and line number
• validate user input by using a parent decision tree
• The parent decision tree acts as an initial filter
• validate the model at the attribute value level
• Comparing both inputs, attribute values from the omnitextual model and user-identified, structured attribute values from the undated manuscript
• a rule-based evaluation engine
• Generating, … a predicted date range and its associated vote proportion for an undated manuscript
• decision tree ensemble processing for quantitative analysis of visual, omnitextual attribute values found in each time period in the omnitextual model
• identify the evidence for the date produced that was previously unknown by the user
• applying a rule-based model, and consistent, non-interpretive logic to structured user observations
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “computer”
(2) A “receiving as input”/“receiving by user input interface file”
(3) A documenting of the location of attribute values
A “computer” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
This “computer” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “receiving as input”/“receiving by user input interface file” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
This “receiving as input”/“receiving by user input interface file” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “documenting of the location of attribute values” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
This “documenting of the location of attribute values” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “computer”
(2) A “receiving as input”/“receiving by user input interface file”
(3) A documenting of the location of attribute values
A “computer” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “receiving as input”/“receiving by user input interface file” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(I)(2) recites in part:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); …
Merely using the conventional computer to receive data is well known, understood, and conventional. Thus, it adds nothing significantly more to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “documenting of the location of attribute values” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites:
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising other supporting details for the predicted date range that may be identified, such as but not limited to:
(a) a manuscript in the omnitextual model that most closely matches the attribute values of the undated manuscript, so that a user may compare an undated manuscript with a similar dated manuscript,
(b) attributes that were most impactful in predicting the date range, which include the conjunction of those attributes that begin or end on the predicted date, and
(c) a detail report that graphically highlights the undated manuscript’s attribute values in relation to those of the omnitextual model for the domain for later user verification or peer review.
Applicant’s Claim 2 merely teaches data used to take mental steps according to the claimed invention. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 2 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites:
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising the ability to use the predicted date range to verify or refute the date of a previously dated manuscript, for example in cases of suspected misdating;
Wherein the prediction and related data are configured for use in the field of textual criticism and can be incorporated into the metadata of a manuscript, and for use as a preliminary step for identifying dates that expose misdated manuscripts and forgeries, which make such manuscripts candidates for additional scientific testing.
Applicant’s Claim 3 merely teaches the mental steps of verification or refutation and the configuration of data (i.e., prediction data and related data.) It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 3 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites:
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising, due to the graphical nature of the decision tree-based omnitextual model,
(a) an interactive user experience, wherein the structured input interface includes prompts to guide the user through attribute collection using standardized visual references to the omnitextual model and digital images of the undated manuscript stored in an online image repository, and the system highlights the user’s attribute selections in the omnitextual model, illuminating the impact of their choices on the date prediction produced in claim 1, and the system provides a vote proportion, which may prompt the user to collect additional observations from the undated manuscript when the vote proportions across multiple time periods are relatively balanced, indicating insufficient confidence for a definitive date prediction.
(b) an educational user experience, by demonstrating how model-based evidence is used to predict date ranges for ancient manuscripts, which engenders objectivity and confidence in the date prediction made in claim 1.
Applicant’s Claim 4 merely teaches user interaction mental steps. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 4 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 JUN 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
Argument 1
Omnitext is directed to patent-eligible subject matter because it provides a specific technical solution to a real-world problem by improving the process of dating undated ancient manuscripts. Omnitext applies a manually-created decision tree ensemble model (i.e., mental steps) that encodes domain-specific and visual paleographical, orthographical, and codicological attributes in a structured, rule-based form, which reflects subject matter expert-chosen, visual attribute patterns unique to historical time periods. This structure enables the consistent, reproducible analysis of manuscripts, eliminating reliance on writing styles, subjective evaluations, inconsistency, bias, circularity, and human error (see claim 1). Omnitext constitutes a technical improvement to a traditionally manual and subjective process of dating manuscripts.
Applicant's “manually-created decision tree ensemble model” is performed using mental steps. Therefore, the application of it is abstract, ineligible matter. Further, it represents an abstract improvement to the abstract “process of dating undated ancient manuscripts”. Abstract improvements to abstractions are, themselves abstract.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 2
Moreover, the amended claims recite specific components that go beyond mere mathematical processes and mental steps. For example, the amended claims include:
• a user interface configured to receive structured input via selectable options in a predefined schema of visual paleographical, orthographical, and codicological attributes, which reduces variability and normalizes the input data (see claim 1);
• a data pre-processor configured to validate user input at the manuscript level using a parent decision tree of specific attributes for outlier detection (see claim 1);
• a data pre-processor configured to validate the model at the attribute value level to detect outliers and avoid processing attribute values found in only one manuscript (see claim 1); e Documenting the location of over 300 attribute values by manuscript number, folio number, and line number, so that the attribute values are recorded for future reference;
• a rule-based evaluation engine that compares the structured input to time-period-specific visual patterns encoded in the decision tree ensemble model (see claim 1); and
• a decision mechanism that highlights the user’s attribute selections in the omnitextual model, illuminating the impact of their choices on the date prediction, and provides a vote proportion for the predicted date range that allows the user to have confidence in the date prediction or to collect additional observations when predictions are ambiguous (see
claim 4).
Omnitext integrates these features into a practical, specialized, and significant application. The system not only processes data—it structures expert knowledge in a machine-interpretable form, engenders user confidence in the date prediction with evidence in multiple types of output from the model (see claim 2), generates an objective, quantitative confidence measure (vote proportion), and is situated in a broader flow of field work (see claim 3). These features together address a specific, longstanding problem in the analysis of manuscripts and enable a scalable (across users and institutions — see conclusion below), reproducible, reliable, and objective date prediction, representing a significant improvement over traditional manuscript dating methods.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are directed to a specific technological solution implemented in a non-conventional manner, and that they satisfy both prongs of the subject matter eligibility test. Withdrawal of the §101 rejection is respectfully requested.
The rejection of all this newly amended matter is addressed, above in the rejection.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 3
Arguments in Response to the Prior Art
The program analyzes an “omnitextual” set of manuscript attributes, as defined in paragraph 7, which must include three types of visual attributes: codicological, orthographical, and paleographical attributes, including the shapes of both letters and ligatures. By contrast, except for Dotson et al., the prior art is concerned only with paleographical attributes regarding the shapes of letters. Regarding Dotson et al., the reader is being taught how to manually write a descriptive narrative of manuscripts using not only the subset of three visually recognizable attribute types required by Omnitext, but many others that require the reader’s further manual research in order for the reader to produce a descriptive narrative about a manuscript, with an end goal of developing writing styles. In Greek paleography, writing styles have been developed already, and over the years, they have been shown to be subjective and controversial; by contrast, Omnitext provides objectivity through the evidence obtained from a model of the manuscript’s domain. Therefore, withdrawal of the §103 rejection is respectfully requested.
The art rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wilbert L. Starks, Jr., who may be reached Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST. or via telephone at (571) 272-3691 or email: Wilbert.Starks@uspto.gov.
If you need to send an Official facsimile transmission, please send it to (571) 273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful the Examiner’s Supervisor (SPE), Kakali Chaki, may be reached at (571) 272-3719.
Hand-delivered responses should be delivered to the Receptionist @ (Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22313), located on the first floor of the south side of the Randolph Building.
Finally, information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Moreover, status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) toll-free @ 1-866-217-9197.
/WILBERT L STARKS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122
WLS
20 SEP 2025