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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/05/2022 and 04/29/2022 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “and” in the middle of the sentence on Page 2 Line 6 before “an abstract” should be removed. The claim is missing the end period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7, 12, 13, 27, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities: missing a colon at the end of “further comprising”. The claims should read “further comprising:”. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informality: recites “the method of claim 20” while claim 20 is a system claim.
Claims 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the additional structured text document has a title, and an abstract…” should remove the “and” before “an abstract”. These are located on Page 6 Lines 1 and 6. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 19, 22, and 26 are objected to because of the following informality: missing the ending period. Appropriate action is required.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes and well-understood, routine, conventional practices. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as explained below.
Step 1 for all Claims:
Claims 1-15 are directed to a process, and Claims 16-30 are directed to a machine. Therefore, Claims 1-30 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
processing the one or more vectors of the additional structured text document through the trained machine learning model to identify appropriate editor teams; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses identifying the appropriate editor teams to be assigned for each text document which is making a judgement which can be exclusively performed in the mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
A method comprising: converting at least one structured text document stored in a database into one or more vectors, each structured text document having a title, an abstract, and editor information; The limitation of a “structured text document stored into a database into one or more vectors” which contains “a title, an abstract, and editor information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites: training a machine learning model to associate the at least one vector with the editor information for that structured text document; This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The training is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim further recites: receiving an additional structured text document, having a title, and an abstract; This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
converting said additional structured text document into one or more vectors; This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The “converting” is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the conversion process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
distributing the additional structured text document to an editor on the appropriate editor team; This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data and outputting for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
and sending the additional structured text document to a computer device associated with the editor on the appropriate editor team. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data and outputting for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
A method comprising: converting at least one structured text document stored in a database into one or more vectors, each structured text document having a title, an abstract, and editor information; The limitation of a “structured text document stored into a database into one or more vectors” which contains “a title, an abstract, and editor information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites: training a machine learning model to associate the at least one vector with the editor information for that structured text document; This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The training is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
converting said additional structured text document into one or more vectors; This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The “converting” is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the conversion process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
distributing the additional structured text document to an editor on the appropriate editor team; As discussed above, the additional elements of “distributing” which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of transmitting data. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim further recites: receiving an additional structured text document, having a title, and an abstract; This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering or receiving data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
and sending the additional structured text document to a computer device associated with the editor on the appropriate editor team. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data and outputting for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim does not recite any judicial exception. However, it is still directed to the same abstract idea as identified in Claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the at least one structured text document stored in a database has a title, an abstract, a full text, and editor information; The limitation of a “text document stored in a database” which has “a title, an abstract, a full text, and editor information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
the additional structured text document has a title, and an abstract, and a full text. The limitation of “text document stored in a database” which has “a title, an abstract, a full text, and editor information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the at least one structured text document stored in a database has a title, an abstract, a full text, and editor information; The limitation of a “text document stored in a database” which has “a title, an abstract, a full text, and editor information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
the additional structured text document has a title, and an abstract, and a full text. The limitation of “text document stored” which has “a title, an abstract, a full text, and editor information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim does not recite any judicial exception. However, it is still directed to the same abstract idea as identified in Claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the at least one structured text document stored in a database has a title, an abstract, metadata, and editor information; The limitation of a “text document stored in a database” which has “a title, an abstract, a full text, and editor information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
the additional structured text document has a title, and an abstract, and metadata. (The limitation of a “text document” which has “a title, an abstract, a full text, and editor information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the at least one structured text document stored in a database has a title, an abstract, metadata, and editor information; The limitation of a “text document stored in a database” which has “a title, an abstract, a full text, and editor information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
the additional structured text document has a title, and an abstract, and metadata. The limitation of a “text document” which has “a title, an abstract, a full text, and editor information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim does not recite any judicial exception. However, it is still directed to the same abstract idea as identified in Claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the at least one structured text document stored in a database has a title, an abstract, a full text, metadata, and editor information; The limitation of a “text document stored in a database” which has “a title, an abstract, a full text, metadata, and editor information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
the additional structured text document, has a title, and an abstract, full text, and metadata. The limitation of a “text document” which has “a title, an abstract, a full text, and metadata” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the at least one structured text document stored in a database has a title, an abstract, a full text, metadata, and editor information; The limitation of a “text document stored in a database” which has “a title, an abstract, a full text, metadata, and editor information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
the additional structured text document, has a title, and an abstract, full text, and metadata. The limitation of a “text document” which has “a title, an abstract, a full text, and metadata” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the trained machine learning model identifies… This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The training is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
appropriate editor teams using confidence scores. The limitation of a “using confidence scores” for editor teams amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
appropriate editor teams using confidence scores. The limitation of a “using confidence scores” for editor teams amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
calculating confidence scores for executive editors by aggregating the confidence scores for each executive editor associated with one or more appropriate editor team; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The method of claim 5, wherein: the editor teams have associate editors and executive editors, each editor team being associated with one executive editor; The limitation of “editor teams” consisting of associate editors and executive editors amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
sending the unpublished structured text documents to a computer device associated with executive editor with the highest aggregate confidence score. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data and outputting for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The method of claim 5, wherein: the editor teams have associate editors and executive editors, each editor team being associated with one executive editor; The limitation of “editor teams” consisting of associate editors and executive editors amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
sending the unpublished structured text documents to a computer device associated with executive editor with the highest aggregate confidence score. As discussed above, the additional elements of “sending” text documents to a computer device which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of transmitting data. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory".
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
processing the vector of the additional structured text document through the trained machine learning model to identify appropriate executive editor teams; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses identifying the appropriate editor teams to be assigned for each text document which is making a judgement which can be exclusively performed in the mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The method of claim 1, further comprising converting at least one structured text document stored in a database into one or more vectors, each structured text document having a title, an abstract, and executive editor information; The limitation of a “structured text document stored into a database into one or more vectors” which contains “a title, an abstract, and editor information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
training a machine learning model to associate the at least one vector with the executive editor information for that structured text document; This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The training is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
receiving an additional structured text document, having a title, and an abstract; This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
converting said additional structured text document into one or more vectors; This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The “converting” is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the conversion process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
distributing the additional structured text document to an editor on the appropriate executive editor team; This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data and outputting for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
and sending the additional structured text document to a computer device associated with the executive editor on the appropriate executive editor team. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data and outputting for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The method of claim 1, further comprising converting at least one structured text document stored in a database into one or more vectors, each structured text document having a title, an abstract, and executive editor information; The limitation of a “structured text document stored into a database into one or more vectors” which contains “a title, an abstract, and editor information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
training a machine learning model to associate the at least one vector with the executive editor information for that structured text document; This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The training is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
receiving an additional structured text document, having a title, and an abstract; As discussed above, the additional elements of data gathering which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of transmitting data. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
converting said additional structured text document into one or more vectors; This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The “converting” is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the conversion process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
distributing the additional structured text document to an editor on the appropriate executive editor team; As discussed above, the additional elements of distributing documents which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of transmitting data. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
and sending the additional structured text document to a computer device associated with the executive editor on the appropriate executive editor team. As discussed above, the additional elements of sending text documents which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of transmitting data. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Regarding Claim 8:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim does not recite any judicial exception. However, it is still directed to the same abstract idea as identified in Claim 7.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The method of claim 7, wherein: the at least one structured text document stored in a database has a title, an abstract, a full text, and executive editor information; The limitation of a “structured text document stored in a database” which contains “a title, an abstract, a full text, and editor information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
the additional structured text document has a title, and an abstract, and a full text. The limitation of a “structured text document” which contains “a title, an abstract, and full text” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The method of claim 7, wherein: the at least one structured text document stored in a database has a title, an abstract, a full text, and executive editor information; The limitation of a “structured text document stored in a database” which contains “a title, an abstract, a full text, and editor information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
the additional structured text document has a title, and an abstract, and a full text. The limitation of a “structured text document” which contains “a title, an abstract, and full text” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 9:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim does not recite any judicial exception. However, it is still directed to the same abstract idea as identified in Claim 7.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The method of claim 7, wherein: the at least one structured text document stored in a database has a title, an abstract, metadata, and executive editor information; The limitation of a “structured text document stored in a database” which contains “a title, an abstract, a metadata, and editor information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
the additional structured text document has a title, and an abstract, and metadata. The limitation of a “structured text document” which contains “a title, an abstract, and metadata” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The method of claim 7, wherein: the at least one structured text document stored in a database has a title, an abstract, metadata, and executive editor information; The limitation of a “structured text document stored in a database” which contains “a title, an abstract, a metadata, and editor information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
the additional structured text document has a title, and an abstract, and metadata. The limitation of a “structured text document” which contains “a title, an abstract, and metadata” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 10:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim does not recite any judicial exception. However, it is still directed to the same abstract idea as identified in Claim 7.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The method of claim 7, wherein: the at least one structured text document stored in a database has a title, an abstract, a full text, metadata, and executive editor information; The limitation of a “structured text document stored in a database” which contains “a title, an abstract, a full text, metadata, and executive editor information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
the additional structured text document, has a title, and an abstract, full text, and metadata. The limitation of a “structured text document” which contains “a title, an abstract, full text, and metadata” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The method of claim 7, wherein: the at least one structured text document stored in a database has a title, an abstract, a full text, metadata, and executive editor information; The limitation of a “structured text document stored in a database” which contains “a title, an abstract, a full text, metadata, and executive editor information” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
the additional structured text document, has a title, and an abstract, full text, and metadata. The limitation of a “structured text document” which contains “a title, an abstract, full text, and metadata” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 11:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The method of claim 7, wherein: the trained machine learning model identifies appropriate executive editor teams using confidence scores. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses identifying th