DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 08/13/2026. Claims 5-7, 15-17, 23, and 25 have been canceled. Claims 1, 12, 22 have been amended. Claims 26-27 have been newly added. Therefore, claims 2, 8-12, 18-22, 24, 26-27 are pending and have been addressed below. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
1. 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2. Claims 2, 8-12, 18-22, 24, 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed an abstract idea without significantly more.
3. Regarding Step 1, Claim 2 recites a machine (i.e., concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), Claim 12 recites a process, (i.e., an act or step, or a series of acts or steps), Claim 22 recites a manufacture, (i.e., an article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means) Thus, each of these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
4. Regarding Step 2A [Prong One], the claims recite an abstract idea.
5. Claims 2, 12, and 22 recites:
“perform… on text of a first review in the plurality of user-authored reviews to identify tokens, lemmas, and parts of speech and to identify a clause structure including at least a subject, verb, and object, and determine a first extraction of a keyword from a first sentence in the first review;”, “generate a first sentence identifier by hashing a string corresponding to the first sentence, the first sentence identifier comprising a first hash code;”, “assign the first sentence identifier both to the first sentence and to the first extraction of the keyword;”, “perform…on text of a second review in the plurality of user-authored reviews to identify tokens, lemmas, and parts of speech and to identify a clause structure including at least a subject, verb, and object, and determine a second extraction of the same keyword from a second sentence in the second review;”, “generate a second sentence identifier by hashing a string corresponding to the second sentence, the second sentence identifier comprising a second hash code; assign the second sentence identifier both to the second sentence and to the second extraction of the keyword;”, “prior to determining any sentiments for themes, compare the first hash code and the second hash code and, based at least in part on the comparison, prevent duplicate or reused sentence text from being counted multiple times by treating the first extraction and the second extraction as a single occurrence of the keyword when the hash codes match and as distinct occurrences of the keyword only when the hash codes differ”, “determine, from text of a third review in the plurality of user-authored reviews, an extraction of a different keyword, wherein the keyword and the different keyword are both associated with a same theme;”, “determine a sentiment for the theme by aggregating rating scores associated with the first review, the second review, and the third review only for non-duplicate occurrences of keywords in the hierarchy as determined by the comparison of the hash codes;”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations recite an abstract idea of analyzing reputation data from user-authored reviews for determining a sentiment for a theme which encompasses commercial interactions (i.e. advertising, marketing or sales activities or business relations) and mental processes, (i.e., evaluation, observation, judgement) which is subject matter that falls within the mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04 II.
The Applicant’s Specification emphasizes in at least [¶ 0002] Businesses are increasingly concerned with their online reputations, and the reputations of their competitors. For example, both positive and negative reviews posted to a review website can impact revenue. As more review websites are created, and as more users post more content to those sites, it is becoming increasingly difficult for businesses to monitor online information.
Consistent with the disclosure, the limitations cover commercial interactions (such as advertising, marketing or sales activities or business relations) because the steps carry- out tasks for processing and analyzing textual information from user authored reviews to determine a sentiment for a theme which may be used by a business/company to aid in understanding and managing their reputation information. In this way, the limitations cover subject matter that falls with the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Additionally, the limitations of “perform”, “generate”, “assign”, “compare”, “prevent”, “determine” pertain to mental processes for “collecting reputation data” and “recognizing certain data within the collected data” in order to determine a result (such as a sentiment for a theme) where the analysis steps carry-out a series a mental tasks at a high-level of generality that can be performed in the human mind or by a person with use of a pen and paper. As such, the claim recites an abstract idea.
6. Regarding Step 2A [Prong Two], the claims recite additional elements which do not amount to a practical application: “a system”, “one or more processors configured to”, “at least one data source”, “a plurality of heterogeneous review sites”, “using at least one of an application programming interface (API) or site scraping”, “natural language processing”, “a hierarchy of terms”, “and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to provide the one or more processors with instructions”, “a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for:” – see claims 2, 12, and 22 are recited at a high-level of generality in light of the specification, [i.e., [¶ 0052] The invention can be implemented in numerous ways, including as a process; an apparatus; a system; a composition of matter; a computer program product embodied on a computer readable storage medium; and/or a processor, such as a processor configured to execute instructions stored on and/or provided by a memory coupled to the processor. In this specification, these implementations, or any other form that the invention may take, may be referred to as techniques. In general, the order of the steps of disclosed processes may be altered within the scope of the invention. Unless stated otherwise, a component such as a processor or a memory described as being configured to perform a task may be implemented as a general component that is temporarily configured to perform the task at a given time or a specific component that is manufactured to perform the task. As used herein, the term 'processor' refers to one or more devices, circuits, and/or processing cores configured to process data, such as computer program instructions.]
Since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the abstract idea. As such, the additional elements are merely adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (f)
The other additional elements of: “receive reputation data extracted, wherein the reputation data includes a plurality of user-authored reviews collected;” and “provide as output a report that indicates the sentiment for the theme” adds insignificant extra-solution to the judicial exception, i.e., data output, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
7. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “a system”, “one or more processors configured to”, “at least one data source”, “a plurality of heterogeneous review sites”, “using at least one of an application programming interface (API) or site scraping”, “natural language processing”, “a hierarchy of terms”, “and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to provide the one or more processors with instructions”, “a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for:” – see claims 2, 12, and 22 are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
The other additional elements of “receive reputation data extracted, wherein the reputation data includes a plurality of user-authored reviews collected;” and “provide as output a report that indicates the sentiment for the theme” were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, and thus must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
The Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs, Versata Dev. Group court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate: “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, “presenting offers and gathering statistics” and “arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price” is/are computer functions that are considered as well-understood, routine, conventional when claimed in a generic manner. Accordingly, when viewed individually and in combination with the judicial exception the combination of additional elements do not add an inventive concept. At Step 2B the claim(s) are ineligible.
8. Dependent claims 8-11, 18-21, 24, 26-27 have been addressed below:
Claims 8 and 18 recite “wherein the first and second reviews are reviews of an entity.” which further describe the type of information/data recited in the abstract idea, but does not make the claim any less abstract, claims 9 and 19 recite “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine whether the keyword is present in an ontology associated with the entity” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed. The one or more processors is/are considered an additional element merely being used in its normal capacity as a tool to aid with performance of the abstract idea, claims 10 and 20 recite “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to select an ontology associated with an entity being reviewed in the first review” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed. The one or more processors is/are considered an additional element merely being used in its normal capacity as a tool to aid with performance of the abstract idea, claims 11 and 21 recite “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to select, from a plurality of ontologies, an ontology that is associated with an industry associated with an entity being reviewed in the first review” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed. The one or more processors is/are considered an additional element merely being used in its normal capacity as a tool to aid with performance of the abstract idea. Claim 24 recites “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to collect the reputation data based on a triggering event including at least one of a scheduled interval or a user login, and wherein the collecting includes executing site-specific helpers to scrape review text from the at least one data source when an API is unavailable.” adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g) The site-specific helpers are considered as additional elements that are merely being used in their normal capacity to retrieve/access information necessary to perform the abstract idea. claim 26 recites “wherein generating the first sentence identifier by hashing a string corresponding to the first sentence and generating the second sentence identifier by hashing a string corresponding to the second sentence comprises using a hash function such that any two arbitrary strings will not have the same resulting hash codes.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed and does not make the claim any less abstract.
claim 27 recites “wherein when a clause structure is successfully identified for the first sentence or the second sentence, the one or more processors are further configured to generate an additional hash code for the clause and to use the additional hash code together with the first hash code or the second hash code in the comparison that prevents duplicate or reused sentence text from being counted multiple times.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed and does not make the claim any less abstract.
Accordingly, the dependent claims fail to impose any meaningful limits on integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims are not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since the claim limitations do not amount to a practical application or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, the Examiner asserts that the claims recite an abstract idea of determining a sentiment for a theme from user-authored reviews, which the Examiner characterizes as encompassing commercial interactions within certain methods of organizing human activity and as mental processes of evaluation, observation, and judgment. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The amended claims do not recite an abstract idea. The ordered combination of limitations requires a specific, computer-implemented technical process that cannot practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.”
As amended, the independent claims recite that the one or more processors (or the corresponding method steps or computer instructions) to perform natural language processing on the text of a first review to identify tokens, lemmas, and parts of speech and to identify a clause structure including at least a subject, verb, and object, and thereby determine a first extraction of a keyword from a first sentence. The presently claimed combination of features further include generating a first sentence identifier by hashing a string corresponding to that first sentence, the identifier comprising a first hash code, and assigning that identifier both to the first sentence and to the first extraction of the keyword. Natural language processing, hashing of a string corresponding to a second sentence, and dual assignment are required for a second extraction of the same keyword from a second review. Prior to determining any sentiments for themes, the presently claimed combination of features recite comparing the first hash code and the second hash code and, based on that comparison, preventing duplicate or reused sentence text from being counted multiple times by treating the extractions as a single occurrence when the hash codes match and as distinct occurrences only when the hash codes differ. The presently claimed combination of features further include determining an extraction of a different keyword associated with the same theme in a hierarchy of terms, and determining a sentiment for the theme by aggregating rating scores associated with the reviews only for non-duplicate occurrences of keywords in the hierarchy as determined by the comparison of the hash codes. A report indicating that sentiment is then provided as output.
These limitations, considered as an ordered combination, are not directed to a mental process. Generating collision-resistant hash codes from sentence strings, linking those codes to individual keyword extractions derived through natural language processing that identifies clause structure, comparing the codes at scale across reviews collected from heterogeneous sources, and conditioning the subsequent aggregation of rating scores on the result of that comparison are operations that require computational tools and cannot practically be performed by a human mind or with pen and paper. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The response purports the claim now recites a specific computer-implemented technical process that cannot practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. The claims in Alice also required a computer that processed streams of bits, but nonetheless were found to be abstract. Contrary to the remarks, the specificity of the presently recited techniques in claim 2 does not change the analysis under Step 2A Prong One. Merely adding additional elements (such as “one or more processors”, “natural language processing”) in the claim does not preclude the identified limitations under Step 2A Prong One from being in the mental processes grouping. It is important for Applicant to note - MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - indicates claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. In the instant case, the limitations of claim 2 merely use “one or more processors” and “natural language processing” as tool to perform the tasks necessary for determining a sentiment for a theme. The inability for the human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer patent eligibility. See Fairwarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc. The fact that the required analysis could be performed more efficiently via one or more processors does not alter the eligibility of the claimed subject matter. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Applicant's specification at paragraphs [00239]-[00243] and Figure 45 describes the assignment of identifiers using a low-level operator that hashes each string such that any two arbitrary strings will not have the same resulting hashes, the linking of those hashes to extractions, and the counting of items only on the basis of occurrences that are unique in all fields, thereby preventing duplicate text from being counted multiple times. Paragraphs [00234]- [00238] of the specification and Figures 42-44 describe the natural language processing pipeline that produces tokens, lemmas, parts of speech, and subject-verb-object clause structure prior to hash assignment. These are concrete technical operations, not evaluations or judgments that can be performed mentally.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant argument are not persuasive. The response relies upon paragraphs [00239]-[00243] from the original Specification which discuss the support for natural language processing techniques or tasks that may be performed at a high-level of generality. The Applicant does not purport to have invented “opennlp” or discuss any technical improvements in the manner “opennlp” operates. The Specification confirms “opennlp” is performing common nlp tasks and thus merely being used in its ordinary or normal capacity. The asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea of determining a sentiment for a theme that merely seeks to use one or more processors and natural language processing as a tool. The Specification’s discussion on “opennlp” does not necessarily describe a technological improvement in natural language processing techniques. The remarks for mental processes were previously considered above and do not change the analysis. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Nor are the claims directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. While the background of the specification at paragraphs [0001]-[0002] notes the business context of online reputation monitoring, the focus of the claims as amended is a technical safeguard against phrase-level spam and duplication that would otherwise distort automated theme-level sentiment analysis. Applicant's specification at paragraph [00241] identifies the problem that duplicate reviews may be wholesale copies or may have slight alterations with common sentences or clauses, and that such reuse can be used to bolster or discredit reputations artificially. The claimed solution uses per-sentence hashing tied to keyword extractions and conditions the aggregation of rating scores on the result of the hash comparison. This is a technological solution to a data-integrity problem arising in computer-implemented review-processing pipelines, not an abstract business relation or marketing activity.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The response now indicates the focus of the claims as amended is a technical safeguard against phrase-level spam and duplication that would otherwise distort automated theme-level sentiment analysis. The Examiner asserts that an abstract idea may be described at different levels of abstraction. Thus focus provided by Applicant does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. As for the purported solution made by Applicant, the courts have previously held the utility of the method does not make it eligible. See Univ. of Fla.Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (automated data synthesis technology did not make claims non-abstract even if it produced "life altering consequences"); In re Elbaum, No. 2023-1418, 2023 WL 8794636, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2023) (an abstract idea's tax benefits and usefulness did not confer eligibility); In re Mahapatra, 842 F. App'x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("[T]he fact that an abstract idea may have beneficial uses does not mean that claims embodying the abstract idea patent eligible."); Western Express Bancshares, LLC v. Green Dot Corp., 816 F. App'x485, 487 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (transforming parties' legal and financial obligations is an abstract idea). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Even if the Examiner were to maintain that the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims integrate any such idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. The amended claims recite a specific technical improvement to automated review analysis systems. The specification describes the problem of spammers creating artificial positive or negative reviews that reuse phrases or sentences, which can distort theme sentiments in automated systems. The claimed solution provides a granular, upstream filtering mechanism that assigns hash-based sentence identifiers to keyword extractions derived through natural language processing, compares those hashes, and aggregates rating scores for a hierarchical theme only for non-duplicate occurrences as determined by the comparison. This improves the accuracy and reliability of the sentiment outputs of the computer-implemented reputation platform. The improvement is reflected in the claim language itself, which now recites that the sentiment determination aggregate scores only for non-duplicate occurrences as determined by the hash comparison, and which requires the natural language processing and hashing steps as part of the ordered pipeline performed prior to any sentiment determination.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The response does not address any of the additional elements identified under Step 2A Prong Two of the previous analysis. Instead the remarks focus on the Applicant’s purported problem and claimed solution which does not automatically lead towards eligibility in this case. Here, the underlined features being relied upon are limitations identified under Prong One recited within the abstract idea. The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a) The Applicant’s remarks also concede the improvement is within the abstract idea itself, not the generic computing equipment or nlp processing technology being used to implement the abstract idea. As for the remarks directed towards improving the accuracy and reliability of the sentiment outputs, the courts have previously held "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). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The additional elements are not merely instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer. The presently claimed combination of features recites processors configured to perform the specific sequence of natural language processing that identifies clause structure, hashing of sentence strings, dual assignment of the resulting identifiers, comparison of the hash codes, and conditional aggregation limited to non-duplicates. These are not generic computing components used in their ordinary capacity.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The specific sequence of steps merely further describes how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. The response alleges the underlined additional elements (such as one or more processors, natural language processing) are not generic computing components or models used in their ordinary capacity. The passages [¶ 0052, 00238-00239] from the original Specification that discuss the additional elements have been reproduced here:
The invention can be implemented in numerous ways, including as a process; an apparatus; a system; a composition of matter; a computer program product embodied on a computer readable storage medium; and/or a processor, such as a processor configured to execute instructions stored on and/or provided by a memory coupled to the processor. In this specification, these implementations, or any other form that the invention may take, may be referred to as techniques. In general, the order of the steps of disclosed processes may be altered within the scope of the invention. Unless stated otherwise, a component such as a processor or a memory described as being configured to perform a task may be implemented as a general component that is temporarily configured to perform the task at a given time or a specific component that is manufactured to perform the task. As used herein, the term 'processor' refers to one or more devices, circuits, and/or processing cores configured to process data, such as computer program instructions.]
[00238] The processing performed by OpenNLP is shown in region 4204. The "S" line
represents a clause, which is a larger unit of structure that has at least a subject and a predicate, a
thing doing something. The remaining lines are phrases, which serve distinct roles in the clause.
These are shown preceded by tags which are also from the Penn Treebank Tag Set. The
indentation shows the hierarchical structure by which a phrase is a component of another phrase.
[00239] Finally, additional processing performed by theme engine 434 is shown in region
4206. The analysis performed in region 4206 turns the OpenNLP analysis into "Subject Verb
Object" structure. In the example shown, the "Agent" is similar to the subject of a clause, the
"Predicate" is similar to the verb, and the "Patient" is similar to the direct object. Additional
examples of processing performed on two additional sentences is shown in Figures 43 and 44.
Thus, the passages from the original Specification confirms the generic nature of the additional elements recited in the claim. As discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b) – merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Applicant's specification at paragraphs [0068]-[0078] further describes collection from heterogeneous review sites using APIs or site-specific helpers triggered by scheduled intervals or user login events, which feeds into the technical filtering pipeline. The combination reflects an improvement to computer technology analogous to the specific rules that improved animation technology in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and the behavior-based filtering that improved computer security in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Here the Specification’s discussion regarding using APIs or site-specific helpers does not alter the analysis under Step 2A Prong Two. These were additional elements that were considered in the analysis and are merely being used in the ordinary capacity to retrieve or access data according to a setting. The original Specification does not discuss how these additional elements provide technological improvements to the judicial exception. As for the remarks directed to McRO, the asserted claims are not applicable because they do not recite a comparable technological solution. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The Examiner's reliance on Berkheimer v. HP Inc. and similar cases does not change the analysis. Those cases involved parsing and comparing data recited at a high level of generality. Here, the presently claimed combination of features as amended require a specific ordered combination of natural language processing that produces clause structure, generation of hash codes by hashing sentence strings, assignment of those codes to both sentences and extractions, comparison of the codes to control counting of occurrences, and aggregation of rating scores only for non-duplicate occurrences in a hierarchy as determined by that comparison. This combination is not recited at a high level of generality and is not a multistep mental process.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Under Step 2A Prong Two, features of the abstract idea cannot be relied upon alone to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(a) Here, the ordered combination further describes the tasks or steps necessary to be performed within the abstract idea itself. At best, the natural language processing limitations were considered additional element that add the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “With respect to Step 2B, the presently claimed combination of features add significantly more than any purported judicial exception. The combination of assigning hash-based sentence identifiers generated by hashing strings corresponding to the sentences, linking those identifiers to keyword extractions obtained through natural language processing that identifies clause structure, comparing the hash codes prior to any sentiment determination, and aggregating rating scores only for non-duplicate occurrences as determined by the comparison provides an unconventional technical solution to phrase-level spam in multi-source review analysis systems. This is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. Common approaches may rely on document-level deduplication; the claimed sentence-granular approach tied to extractions and upstream of hierarchical theme aggregation is a specific technical arrangement that transforms the system into one that produces more reliable sentiment outputs. The ordered combination supplies an inventive concept under BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The response discusses the benefits of the ordered combination of limitations but relies upon features of the abstract idea alone which cannot integrate the juridical exception into a practical application. As previously explained above, the courts have previously held the utility of the method does not make it eligible and these conclusory allegations have been considered but are insufficient to demonstrate an inventive concept. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The dependent claims further support eligibility. Claim 24, for example, recites collection based on a triggering event including a scheduled interval or user login and execution of site-specific helpers to scrape review text when an API is unavailable. This is not insignificant extra-solution activity; it is part of the technical architecture that supplies data to the filtering pipeline.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In the instant case, claim 24 further recites limitations that perform the necessary data gathering to aid in performance of the abstract idea. There are no technical details related to the site-specific helpers recited in the independent claims. Using result focused functional claim language is a frequent feature of ineligible claims especially those that claim the use of generic computer technology to aid in performance of business tasks. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Claims 8-11 and 18-21 further specify reviews of an entity and selection or use of ontologies associated with the entity or its industry, which operate in conjunction with the hierarchical theme and non-duplicate aggregation recited by the independent claims.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. At best, these claims further describe the type of data/information that may be used to implement the abstract idea but do not make the claimed invention any less abstract. The limitations do not add significantly more and are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Applicant further argues “Applicant has carefully considered the Examiner's responses to prior arguments. The Examiner maintained that the specificity of the techniques does not remove the invention from the abstract idea realm and that the disclosure describes the techniques in a generic manner. The amendments directly address these points by incorporating into the independent claims the natural language processing that identifies clause structure, the generation of sentence identifiers by hashing strings corresponding to the sentences, the dual assignment of those identifiers, the comparison that controls treatment of occurrences as single or distinct, the hierarchical association of the theme, and the aggregation limited to non-duplicate occurrences as determined by the hash comparison. These features are supported by the detailed technical description in the specification and are not generic. The Examiner also maintained that the claims do not improve computer technology and that timing of steps does not provide an improvement. The amended claims make clear that the hash comparison and conditional treatment of occurrences occur prior to any sentiment determination and directly control the aggregation that produces the theme sentiment, thereby enhancing the reliability of the automated system's output. This is an improvement to the functioning of the computer-implemented reputation analysis platform itself. For the foregoing reasons, the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Even if they were, they integrate any such idea into a practical application and add significantly more. Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. At best the remarks rely upon the features of abstract idea (such as identifies clause structure, the generation of sentence identifiers by hashing strings corresponding to the sentences, the dual assignment of those identifiers, the comparison that controls treatment of occurrences as single or distinct, the hierarchical association of the theme, and the aggregation limited to non-duplicate occurrences as determined by the hash comparison) to establish that the claimed invention provides an improved method for determining theme sentiment, i.e., an improved abstract idea, which is not enough for patent eligibility. See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[P]atent law does not protect such claims [, i.e., claims to an asserted advance in the realm of abstract ideas], without more, no matter how groundbreaking the advance.”). Features of the abstract idea alone cannot be relied upon to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. As can be seen, the improvements are within recited within the abstract idea and not the computer components being used to implement the abstract idea. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Claims 26 and 27 variously depend from claim 2. Because the applied references fail to disclose or render obvious the features presently recited in independent claim 2, dependent claims 26 and 27 are patentable for at least the reasons that claim 2 is patentable, as well as for the additional features recited therein. Accordingly, allowance of the claims is respectfully requested.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Here, the response does not explain how claims 26-27 impart subject matter eligibility. The present rejection indicates these limitations further narrow steps in how the abstract idea may be performed. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights