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 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 21-32 recite a method (process) and therefore fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?):
The claims as a whole recites a method for determining metrics and other information associated with litigation campaigns based on the analysis of collected information, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts performed in mental processes.
In the present case, concepts capable of being performing in the human mind and/or via pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)) such as determining metrics and other information associated with litigation campaigns based on the analysis of collected information. The abstract idea portion of the claims is as follows:
A [computer user interface] method for analyzing litigation data of a technology area, [the computer user interface produced on a user computing device, for operation by a user, in communication with a server computing device executing code establishing computer processes comprising:]
causing, [by the server computing device], a first qualitative analysis comprising: obtaining litigation data [from a data source], the data corresponding to the technology area,
generating vector representations of the litigation data, wherein the vector representations comprise less data than the litigation data,
wherein generating the vector representations comprises generating embeddings of the litigation data as lists of floating-point numbers based at least in part on text contents of the litigation data,
generating a vector space specific to the vector representations that indicates distances between the vector representations, and
generating, based at least partly on a first portion of the vector representation, a litigation campaign, the litigation campaign including at least one of:
a non-practicing entity (NPE) status associated with the first portion of the litigation data,
a number of days since a most recent filing of a litigation case, a total number of case filings in the litigation data,
a length of the litigation data,
a total number of defendants in the litigation data,
a technology area associated with the litigation data, and
a plaintiff associated with the litigation data;
transmitting, [via a network by a communication protocol from the server computing device to the user computing device], the litigation campaign;
displaying, to a user, a first graphic associated with the litigation campaign based on the first qualitative analysis, wherein the first graphic is configured to update dynamically based at least in part on receiving new user input;
[generating, in real time and based on the litigation campaign, a dynamic animation sequence associated with interactive graphic elements; and;
[wherein the interactive graphic elements are configured to respond to user inputs representing manipulations to the interactive graphic elements; and]
[displaying the dynamic animation sequence with the first graphic such that the user computing device is automatically caused to output the dynamic animation sequence].
Where the portions not bracketed recite the abstract idea.
The recited abstract idea above describes a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computing components. In the present application concepts directed to determining metrics and other information associated with litigation campaigns based on the analysis of collected information. (See paragraph 1)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts capable of being performed in the human mind and/or via pen and paper, it falls under the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?):
The examiner views the following as the additional elements:
A computer user interface. (See paragraphs 29 and 71)
A user computing device. (See paragraph 106)
A server computing device. (See paragraph 70)
A data source. (See paragraph 114)
A network. (See paragraphs 69 and 79)
A communication protocol. (See paragraphs 79-80)
A display. (See paragraph 106)
A screen. (See paragraph 30 and 105)
There is no indication that the computing elements are anything but generic hardware and /or software.
Referring to “generating, in real time and based on the litigation campaign, a dynamic animation sequence associated with interactive graphic elements; and; wherein the interactive graphic elements are configured to respond to user inputs representing manipulations to the interactive graphic elements; and displaying the dynamic animation sequence with the first graphic such that the user computing device is automatically caused to output the dynamic animation sequence” the examiner views as a results-oriented solution lacking details and therefore equivalent to merely apply it. (See paragraphs 41 and 72 of the Specification).
The above additional elements and/or results oriented steps are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing components within a computing environment and do not provide for a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?):
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22-27, 29-30, and 32 further define the abstract idea as identified. Therefore claims 22-27, 29-30, and 32 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 28 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claims recite the generic second data sources (See paragraphs 114 and 236) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 28 is considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 31 further defines the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claims recite the generic computer user interface (See paragraphs 29 and 71) for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claim 31 is considered to be patent ineligible.
In conclusion the claims do not provide an inventive concept, because the claims do not recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the claims. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 10, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on page 6-7 of the Remarks, regarding the 101 rejection the Examiner finds unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims recite the step of generating embeddings of the litigation data as lists of floating-point numbers based at least in part on text contents of the litigation data. According to Applicant, vectorization techniques such as DOC2Vec are computational processes that transform documents into vector form that is a technical implementation different from a mental process.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing that there are no limitations in the manner of generating the vector representations including generating embeddings of the litigation data as lists of floating-point numbers based at least in part on text contents of the litigation data. Rather the asserted step encompasses any technique for vectorization which the Examiner maintains under its broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses a person capable of viewing the text content and generate the embedding to include in the vector representations. This information is further used in generating a vector space based on the vector representations indicative of the distances between the vector representation, and generating the litigation campaign based on the vector representation that are additional steps the Examiner views that a person can perform in the human mind or via pen and paper. (See also paragraph 66).
Applicant argues the disputed limitations provide for reciting a specific technical implementation of vector generation- generating embeddings as lists of floating-point numbers on text contents- which is not a generic computer function but rather a particular way of processing litigation data that provides a technical improvement, Applicant contends that the limitation of “the interactive graphic elements are configured to respond to user inputs representing manipulations to the interactive graphic elements” specifies how the user interface technically functions to respond to user manipulations, rather than merely displaying results on a generic display. According to Applicant, the claims recite specific technical processes, embedded generation using floating-point numbers and interactive graphic elements that respond to user manipulations- that cannot be performed mentally that provides meaningful to limitations on how the claimed method is implemented.
The Examiner maintaining that the vector generation step and generating steps as claimed are part of the recited abstract idea as discussed above. The Examiner views the interactive graphic elements and corresponding functions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components. There are no details pertaining to how interactive graphic elements respond to user inputs representing manipulations to interactive graphic elements but rather describes the result desired from the interactive graphic elements. The claims are not directed to improvements to vector generation or user interface functions as contested by Applicant, but rather are directed to determining metrics and other information associated with litigation campaigns based on the analysis of collected information. Further the additional elements amount to no more alone or in combination than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components rather than integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Therefore, the Examiner has maintained the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nguyen et al. (US 20210049700) – directed a machine learning architecture for predicting opportunities from numerical and/or unstructured data.
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 inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MONAGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5523. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached on (571) 270-1833. 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.
/Michael J. Monaghan/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights