DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 09/03/2025.
Claims 1 and 13 have been amended.
Claims 2-3, 5, 9-10 and 14 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8 and 11-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/03/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement filed on 04/02/2025 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 09/03/2025:
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Claim Rejection – 35 USC § 101” in pages 6-11, that:
“Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
I. The Claims Address the Specific Computer Science Problem of Temporal Data
Correlation Across Unstructured Document Collections
Technological Improvements Achieved
The claimed invention provides technological improvements in data retrieval efficiency, cross-document comparison, and structured financial data auditing. The system addresses the computational challenge that financial documents, even from the same entity, can vary significantly in structure over time, with "the order of the tables often varies across documents, and is particularly different in 10-Ks and 10-Qs" (1[0024]).
The technological improvement lies in the system's ability to automatically identify and correlate temporal relationships between structured data representations across multiple unstructured documents. This creates enhanced data retrieval efficiency because users can automatically access historical financial data trends without manual document-by-document analysis. The system improves comparison efficiency through algorithmic matching of structured dictionary representations, enabling rapid identification of changes in financial metrics across reporting periods. Finally, the system's structured financial data auditing capabilities allow users to trace time series values back to their source documents through the interactive interface, creating an automated audit trail impossible with conventional document processing systems.
The Office Action analogizes the present invention with those of three cases which were held to be abstract ideas: Content Extraction, TLI Communications, and Electric Power Group. Applicant respectfully disagrees as discussed below.
Distinction from Content Extraction
Content Extraction involved basic data collection, recognition, and storage from paper checks without any cross-document temporal analysis or structured data transformation. The claims in Content Extraction were directed to simple data extraction and storage operations - essentially digitizing physical documents into electronic records.
The claimed invention fundamentally differs because it performs complex algorithmic operations between multiple document datasets to identify temporal relationships. Rather than simply extracting and storing data from individual documents, the claimed system creates structured intermediate representations (dictionaries) that enable algorithmic comparison across document collections. The system generates time series data by analyzing relationships between structured representations from different time periods, representing a sophisticated computational process far beyond the basic data collection and storage found insufficient in Content Extraction.
Distinction from TLI Communications
TLI Communications involved classifying and storing digital images based on their classification, using conventional telephone and server technology to carry out basic image organization. The Federal Circuit noted that the physical components "merely provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner."
The claimed invention addresses a fundamentally different computational problem: temporal correlation analysis across structurally variable financial documents. Unlike TLI's simple image classification and storage, the claimed system must solve the complex technical challenge of maintaining structural relationships during data transformation and performing algorithmic matching across transformed datasets from different time periods. The dictionary conversion process creates a specific computational framework that preserves the contextual relationships between data elements and their structural positions within the original unstructured documents. Subsequent temporal analysis operations would be computationally impossible without this specialized data structure transformation. The system's ability to generate time series representations by comparing structured dictionaries addresses specific technological challenges in distributed financial document processing that extend beyond basic classification and storage … Distinction from Electric Power Group in Dictionary Context
Electric Power Group used conventional data structures and processing techniques without creating specialized intermediate representations that enable new computational capabilities. The system simply collected and processed information using standard computer technology without transforming how the underlying data could be computationally manipulated.
The claimed dictionary conversion creates a specific data structure innovation that enables computational operations impossible with the original unstructured data format. The dictionary structure allows the system to perform algorithmic matching operations between documents with different internal structures by providing a standardized framework for comparison. This represents a specific improvement in computer system functionality by creating new data processing capabilities rather than simply applying conventional technology to a new domain. The technological significance lies in the creation of computational capabilities that did not exist with the original unstructured document format, demonstrating a concrete advance in how computer systems can process and correlate information across document collections.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101”.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and emphasizes none of the receiving, identifying, extracting, converting, generating, comparing, identifying, storing, transmitting steps, whether taken individually or collectively, have not been shown to affect any form of technical change or improvement whatsoever, and are abstract idea. Applicant's claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the computer, computer software, or any technical elements in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is simply no showing of implementing any of the claim steps, individually or in combination, amounts to a technological improvement, nor the alleged “technological improvement lies in the system's ability to automatically identify and correlate temporal relationships between structured data representations across multiple unstructured documents” suggested by applicant. Although Applicant asserts that “creates a specialized computational framework that transforms how computer systems process unstructured financial documents” and “creating a computational bridge that allows algorithmic operations across documents with varying internal structures. This enables significant improvements in data retrieval efficiency because the structured format allows direct algorithmic access to specific data elements and their relationships”, the Examiner first notes that managing analyzing documents and generating information for documentation is not reasonably understood as a technology, but instead involves mental process and organizing of human activity.
The data collection, recognition, and storage concept described in the claim is similar to the data collection and management concepts that were held to be abstract ideas in Content Extraction, TLI Communications, and Electric Power Group. Although the claim enumerates the type of information that is acquired, stored and analyzed, the Federal Circuit has explained in Electric Power Group and Digitech that the mere selection and manipulation of particular information by itself does not make an abstract concept any less abstract. Further, the claim is not made any less abstract by the invocation of a programmed computer. Unlike Enfish, where the claims were focused on a specific improvement in how the computer functioned, the claim here merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract concepts.
Furthermore, the recited “at least one processor”, and “one or more remote computing devices connected via a network”, and “transmitting the generated time series over the network to an interactive graphical user interface” this recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the claims amount to an improvement over prior art techniques for analyzing documents, such an improvement would be considered, at most, an improvement confined within the abstract idea itself, which is not enough to confer eligibility on the claim. For the reasons above, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 4, 6-8 and 11-12 recites a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claim 13 recites a method, which is directed to a process.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 1 and 13 recite the abstract idea of analyzing documents and generating information for documentation. This idea is described by the steps of
receiving a first document file containing first unstructured data;
receiving a user selection of a first table containing financial data within the first document file;
identifying and extracting first tabular data corresponding to the first table within the first document file, wherein the first tabular data includes headers, terms, and values;
converting the first tabular data into a first dictionary that stores the first tabular data in a structured format that explicitly preserves column-to-data relationships and source document location;
generating a time series for the first table that includes comparing the first tabular data in the first dictionary with second tabular data in a second dictionary to identify relationships between the first tabular data and the second tabular data, wherein the second tabular data includes headers, terms, and values extracted from a second table within a second document file containing second unstructured data, wherein the second dictionary stores the second tabular data the structured format;
storing the generated time series for the first table, wherein the time series represents changes to the financial data of the first table from the first document file against the second table from the second document file; and
transmitting the generated time series,
The claim recites a mental process. Before computers one could mentally or a human using paper and pen to receive a selected first table inputs of a document, identify and extract first tabular, convert the first tabular to a structured format (i.e., first dictionary), generate a time series for the first table including comparing first tabular with second tabular to identify relationships between the first tabular and second tabular, storing the generated time series, transmit the generated time series. The claims are merely directed to analyze documents contents and generate or convert these analyzed data to different standardized structure as required to determine changes in the financial data. The Examiner finds the recited claim to be similar to:
i. A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which the courts have also found to recite a mental process.
ii. A claim to a method for rendering a halftone image of a digital image by comparing, pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask, where the method required the manipulation of computer data structures (e.g., the pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array known as a mask) and the output of a modified computer data structure (a halftoned digital image), Research Corp. Techs., 627 F.3d at 868, 97 USPQ2d at 1280.
The claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity. The claim recites to a certain method of organizing human activity as the above abstract idea limitations are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The examiner finds the claim to simply recites receiving information, generating or converting these analyzed data to different standardized structure as required based on followed rules or instructions.
The Examiner additionally finds the claims to be similar to an example the courts have identified as being a certain method of organizing human activity:
i. filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea under step 2A, but reversing an invalidity judgment of ineligibility due to an inadequate step 2B analysis);
ii. considering historical usage information while inputting data, BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
The data collection, recognition, and storage concept described in the claim is similar to the data collection and management concepts that were held to be abstract ideas in Content Extraction, TLI Communications, and Electric Power Group. Although the claim enumerates the type of information that is acquired, stored and analyzed, the Federal Circuit has explained in Electric Power Group and Digitech that the mere selection and manipulation of particular information by itself does not make an abstract concept any less abstract. Further, the claim is not made any less abstract by the invocation of a programmed computer.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: at least one processor, one or more remote computing devices connected via a network, transmitting the generated time series over the network to an interactive graphical user interface,
Claim 13: one or more remote computing devices connected via a network, transmitting the generated time series over the network to an interactive graphical user interface,
The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to 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, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to 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, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 4, 6-8 and 11-12 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1 and 13 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 4, 6-8 and 11-12 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1 and 13 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claims 4, 6, 7, 11, 12: system,
Claim 8: system, a computing system that executes software managed by a third-party financial intelligence service provider,
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of analyzing documents and generating information for documentation, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1, 4, 6-8 and 11-13, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Distinguished Over Prior Art
Examiner is in agreement with applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 03/26/2025. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the applicant's claimed invention. Accordingly, the applicant needs to address the outstanding rejections above in order to issue an allowability notice. The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1 and 13 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed.
Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so.
Upon further searching as the examiner further search the amended claims, the closest prior art found by the examiner is Srinivasan et al. (US 7590647 B2) teaches a set of identification rules, parsing/tokenizing rules, interpretation/mapping rules, and standardizing rules are first developed, as required. Yet, Srinivasan does not teach the claimed invention as the independent claim 1 and 13 recited. A detailed reasons of allowance would be issued by the examiner based on further responses from the applicant. Accordingly, the examiner recommends addressing the outstanding rejections above.
Conclusion
1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627