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 .
This communication is in response to Amendment filed on February 3, 2026. Claims 2-21 are pending. Claims 2, 3, 6-8, 12, 14-16, 20 are amended. Claim 1 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Referring to the objections to claims 3, 7, 8, 15 and 16, Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged. As such, the objections to the aforenoted claims are withdrawn.
Referring to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 12 and 20, Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged. As such, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of the aforenoted claims is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims, as amended, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Referring to claims 2, 6 and 14, Applicant argues that Toivanen does not teach ‘filtering the components of the documents to a subset of the components’ and ‘displaying the subset of components, wherein displaying the subset of the components eliminates sending, receiving and processing of the components of the documents other than the subset of the components’. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner submits that Toivanen discloses that the input raw data is filtered to extract the description section of each patent and that the filtered data is used as an input to preprocessing and tokenization [para 102]. Furthermore, Toivanen discloses that after the data is filtered, the input data containing description sections of patents is tokenized and converted to vectors using bag-of words-representation [para 103]. In selecting the description section of patents, the figures from the patent descriptions are excluded [para 102]. Finally, Toivanen discloses displaying a word cloud visualization with tokens from the documents pertaining to various topics [Fig 4-5, 7 and corresponding portions of specification]. As such, Examiner maintains that Toivanen does teach the claims, as amended.
The rejections of all claims depending from the aforenoted claims are also maintained for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: ‘an element configured to accept user input..’ in claims 2, 6 and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites:
receiving documents that include at least one of patents or patent applications;
generating first data representing the documents, the first data distinguishing
components of the documents;
filtering the components of the documents to a subset of the components;
generating a user interface configured to display:
the subset of the components of individual ones of the documents, wherein displaying the subset of the components eliminates sending, receiving and processing of the components of the documents other than the subset of the components; and
an element configured to accept user input indicating whether the individual ones of the documents are in class or out of class;
generating a classification model based at least in part on user input data corresponding to the user input, the classification model trained utilizing at least a first portion of the documents indicated to be in class by the user input data; and
causing the user interface to display an indication of:
the first portion of the documents;
a second portion of the documents marked as out of class in response to the user input;
a third portion of the documents determined to be in class utilizing the classification model; and
a fourth portion of the documents determined to be out of class utilizing the classification model.
Step 1: The claim as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: At least claim 2 recites limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “filtering the components of the documents to a subset of the components” is a mental step. One can mentally filter data by selecting those items of interest to the person. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Furthermore, the limitation “generating a classification model based at least in part on user input data corresponding to the user input, the classification model trained utilizing at least a first portion of the documents indicated to be in class by the user input data” is also a mental step. A user can mentally generate a model based on documents determined to belong a specific class, as determined by the user. Thus the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claim 2 recites the limitations
“receiving documents that include at least one of patents or patent applications”. This limitation is an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation “generating first data representing the documents, the first data distinguishing components of the documents” is also an additional element and is using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks such as storing data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
In addition, the limitations “display[ing] the subset of the components of individual ones of the documents, wherein displaying the subset of the components eliminates sending, receiving and processing of the components of the documents other than the subset of the components; and an element configured to accept user input indicating whether the individual ones of the documents are in class or out of class” and “display[ing] an indication of: the first portion of the documents; a second portion of the documents marked as out of class in response to the user input; a third portion of the documents determined to be in class utilizing the classification model; and a fourth portion of the documents determined to be out of class utilizing the classification model” are additional elements and is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting and outputting information for display, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016, and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Furthermore, claim 2 recites the following additional elements “a user interface”, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "receiving” and “displaying” limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Furthermore, the “generating first data” limitation is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Claim 6 recites:
generating first data representing documents received from one or more databases;
filtering components of the documents to a subset of the components;
causing display of (1) an element configured to accept user input indicating whether individual ones of the documents are in class or out of class and (2) the subset of the components of individual ones of the documents, wherein displaying the subset of the components eliminates sending, receiving and processing of the components of the documents other than the subset of the components;
generating a model based at least in part on user input data corresponding to the user input;
determining, utilizing the model, a first portion of the documents that are in class and a second portion of the documents that are out of class; and
causing display of an indication of the first portion of the documents and the second portion of the documents.
Step 1: The claim as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: At least claim 6 recites limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “filtering components of the documents to a subset of the components” is a mental step. One can mentally filter data by selecting those items of interest to the person. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Furthermore, the limitation “generating a model based at least in part on user input data corresponding to the user input” is also a mental step. A user can mentally generate a model based on user input. Thus the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Furthermore, the limitation “determining a first portion of the documents that are in class and a second portion of the documents that are out of class” is a mental step. A user can mentally select data pertaining to different categories. Thus the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claim 6 recites the limitations
The limitation “generating first data representing documents received from one or more databases” is also an additional element and is using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks such as storing data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
In addition, the limitations “display[ing] of (1) an element configured to accept user input indicating whether individual ones of the documents are in class or out of class and (2) the subset of the components of individual ones of the documents, wherein displaying the subset of the components eliminates sending, receiving and processing of the components of the documents other than the subset of the components” and “causing display of an indication of the first portion of the documents and the second portion of the documents” are additional elements and is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting and outputting information for display, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016, and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Furthermore, claim 6 recites the following additional elements “one or more processors”, “computer readable media executing instructions”, and “a model”, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer hardware and software components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
With respect to the “displaying” limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Furthermore, the “generating first data” limitation is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Claim 14 recites:
generating first data representing documents received from one or more databases;
filtering the components of the documents to a subset of the components;
causing display of (1) an element configured to accept user input indicating whether individual ones of the documents are in class or out of class and (2) the subset of the components of individual ones of the documents, wherein displaying the subset of the components eliminates sending, receiving and processing of the components of the documents other than the subset of the components;
generating a model based at least in part on user input data corresponding to the user input; and
determining, based at least in part on the model and the user input data, a first portion of the documents that are in class and a second portion of the documents that are out of class.
Step 1: The claim as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: At least claim 14 recites limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “filtering the components of the documents to a subset of the components” is a mental step. One can mentally filter data by selecting those items of interest to the person. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Furthermore, the limitation “generating a model based at least in part on user input data corresponding to the user input” is also a mental step. A user can mentally generate a model based on user input. Thus the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Furthermore, the limitation “determining, based at least in part on the model and the user input data, a first portion of the documents that are in class and a second portion of the documents that are out of class” is a mental step. A user can mentally select data pertaining to different categories. Thus the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claim 14 recites the limitations
The limitation “generating first data representing documents received from one or more databases” is also an additional element and is using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks such as storing data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
In addition, the limitations “causing display of (1) an element configured to accept user input indicating whether individual ones of the documents are in class or out of class and (2) the subset of the components of individual ones of the documents, wherein displaying the subset of the components eliminates sending, receiving and processing of the components of the documents other than the subset of the components” is an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting and outputting information for display, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016, and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
With respect to the “displaying” limitation identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Furthermore, the “generating first data” limitation is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Claims 3, 7 and 15 depend from claims 2, 6 and 14 and thus include all the limitations of 2, 6 and 14, therefore claims 3, 7 and 15 recite the same abstract idea of "mental process".
Claims 3, 7 and 15 furthermore recite:
determining a first confidence value associated with results of the classification model;
receiving second user input indicating classification of at least one document determined to be in class utilizing the classification model;
causing the classification model to be retrained based at least in part on second user input data corresponding to the second user input;
determining a second confidence value associated with results of the classification model as retrained; and
causing display of a trendline representing a change from the first confidence value to the second confidence value.
Step 1: Claims 3, 7 and 15 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 3, 7, and 15 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitations “determining a first confidence value associated with results of the classification model” and “determining a second confidence value associated with results of the classification model as retrained” are mental steps. One can mentally determine confidence values associated with a set of data. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “causing the classification model to be retrained based at least in part on second user input data corresponding to the second user input” is a mental step. A user can mentally select data that could cause a model to be retrained based on updated data selections. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claims 3, 7 and 15 recite the limitation “receiving second user input indicating classification of at least one document determined to be in class utilizing the classification model”. This receiving step is an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation “causing display of a trendline representing a change from the first confidence value to the second confidence value” is also an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting and outputting information for display, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016, and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
With respect to the "receiving” and “displaying” limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above, when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claims 3, 7 and 15 as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claim 4 depends from claim 2 and thus include all the limitations of claim 2, therefore claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of "mental process".
Claim 4 furthermore recites:
receiving second user input indicating classification of at least one document determined to be in class utilizing the classification model;
causing the classification model to be retrained based at least in part on second user input data corresponding to the second user input;
determining a change in a number of the third portion of the documents marked in class utilizing the classification model as retrained; and
causing display of an influence value of the second user input on output by the classification model, the influence value indicating a likelihood that additional user input will impact performance of the classification model.
Step 1: Claim 4 as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claim 4 recites limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “determining a change in a number of the third portion of the documents marked in class utilizing the classification model as retrained” is a mental step. One can mentally determine a change in a number of documents based on a select criteria. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “causing the classification model to be retrained based at least in part on second user input data corresponding to the second user input” is a mental step. A user can mentally select data that could cause a model to be retrained based on updated data selections. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claim 4 recites the limitation “receiving second user input indicating classification of at least one document determined to be in class utilizing the classification model”. This receiving step is an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation “causing display of an influence value of the second user input on output by the classification model, the influence value indicating a likelihood that additional user input will impact performance of the classification model” is also an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting and outputting information for display, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016, and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
With respect to the "receiving” and “displaying” limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above, when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claim 4 as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Claim 5 depends from claim 2 and thus include all the limitations of 2, therefore claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of "mental process".
Claim 5 furthermore recites:
generating second data indicating a relationship between a first document of the documents and a second document of the documents, the relationship indicating that the first document includes at least one component that is similar to a component of the second document;
determining that the user input data indicates that the first document is in class; and
determining that the second document is in class based at least in part on the second data indicating the relationship.
Step 1: Claim 5 as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claim 5 recites limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitations “determining that the user input data indicates that the first document is in class” and “determining that the second document is in class based at least in part on the second data indicating the relationship” are mental steps. One can visually make a determination of a class of data selected by a user and based on a relationship to another item of data. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claim 5 recites the limitation “generating second data indicating a relationship between a first document of the documents and a second document of the documents, the relationship indicating that the first document includes at least one component that is similar to a component of the second document”. This is an additional element and is using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks such as storing data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Step 2B:
Furthermore, the “generating second data” limitation is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claim 5 as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Claim 8 depends from claim 6 and thus include all the limitations of 6, therefore claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of "mental process".
Claim 8 furthermore recites:
receiving second user input indicating classification of at least one document determined to be in class utilizing the model;
causing the model to be retrained based at least in part on second user input data corresponding to the second user input;
determining a change in a number of at least one of the first portion of the documents or the second portion of the documents utilizing the model as retrained; and
causing display of an influence value of the second user input on output by the model.
Step 1: Claim 8 as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claim 8 recites limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “determining a change in a number of at least one of the first portion of the documents or the second portion of the documents utilizing the model as retrained” is a mental step. One can mentally determine a change in a number of documents based on a select criteria. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “causing the model to be retrained based at least in part on second user input data corresponding to the second user input” is a mental step. A user can mentally select data that could cause a model to be retrained based on a user input. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claim 8 recites the limitation “receiving second user input indicating classification of at least one document determined to be in class utilizing the model”. This receiving step is an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation “causing display of an influence value of the second user input on output by the model” is also an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting and outputting information for display, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016, and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
With respect to the "receiving” and “displaying” limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above, when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claim 8 as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Claims 9 and 17 are similar to claim 5 and as such are rejected for the same reasons addressed with respect to the latter claim above.
Claim 10 depends from claim 6 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 6, therefore claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of "mental process".
Claim 10 furthermore recites
determining, for individual ones of the documents marked as in class, a confidence value; and
determining a ranking of the individual ones of the documents marked as in class based at least in part on the confidence value.
Step 1: Claim 10 as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claim 10 recites limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “determining, for individual ones of the documents marked as in class, a confidence value” and “determining a ranking of the individual ones of the documents marked as in class based at least in part on the confidence value” are mental steps. One can mentally determine a confidence value for selected data and a ranking of the data based on the determined confidence value as a selected criterion. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claim 10 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 10 does not recite any additional elements that would provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 10 as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Claim 11 depends from claim 6 and thus include all the limitations of 6, therefore claim 11 recites the same abstract idea of "mental process".
Claim 11 furthermore recites:
causing display of: a first indication of a first number of the documents marked in class; a second indication of a second number of the documents marked out of class; a third indication of a third number of the documents determined to be in class utilizing the model; and a fourth indication of a fourth number of the documents determined to be out of class utilizing the model.
Step 1: Claim 11 as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claim 11 recites an abstract idea because it depends from claim 6 that recites mental processes.
Step 2A prong 2:
The limitation “causing display of: a first indication of a first number of the documents marked in class; a second indication of a second number of the documents marked out of class; a third indication of a third number of the documents determined to be in class utilizing the model; and a fourth indication of a fourth number of the documents determined to be out of class utilizing the model” is also an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting and outputting information for display, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016, and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
With respect to the "“displaying” limitation identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above, when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claim 11 as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Claims 12 and 20 depend from claims 6 and 14 and thus include all the limitations of claims 6 and 14, therefore claims 12 and 20 recite the same abstract idea of "mental process".
Claims 12 and 20 furthermore recite:
causing display of: a first section indicating first keywords determined to be statistically relevant by the model for identifying the first portion of the documents; and a second section indicating second keywords determined to be statistically relevant by the model for identifying the second portion of the documents; and
based at least in part on receiving user input indicating that at least one of the first keywords or the second keywords should be removed, retraining the model to account for removal of the at least one of the first keywords or the second keywords.
Step 1: Claims 12 and 20 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 12 and 20 recite limitations that are abstract ideas because they depend from claims 6 and 14 that recite mental processes.
Step 2A prong 2: Claims 12 and 20 recite the limitation “retraining the model to account for removal of the at least one of the first keywords or the second keywords based at least in part on receiving user input indicating that at least one of the first keywords or the second keywords should be removed”. This retraining step is an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks such as updating stored data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The limitation “causing display of: a first section indicating first keywords determined to be statistically relevant by the model for identifying the first portion of the documents; and a second section indicating second keywords determined to be statistically relevant by the model for identifying the second portion of the documents” is an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting and outputting information for display, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016, and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
With respect to the “displaying” limitation identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above, when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Furthermore, the “retraining the model to account for removal of keywords” limitation is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claims 12 and 20 as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claims 13 and 21 depend from claims 6 and 14 and thus include all the limitations of claims 6 and 14, therefore claims 13 and 21 recite the same abstract idea of "mental process".
Claims 13 and 21 furthermore recite:
searching, utilizing the model, one or more databases for additional documents determined to be in class the model;
receiving an instance of at least one additional documents from the one or more databases;
receiving user input indicating classification of the at least one additional documents; and
retraining the model based at least in part on the user input indicating the classification of the additional documents.
Step 1: Claims 13 and 21 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 13 and 21 recite limitations that are abstract ideas because they depend from claims 6 and 14 that recite mental processes.
Step 2A prong 2:
The limitations “searching one or more databases for additional documents determined to be in class the model”, “receiving an instance of at least one additional documents from the one or more databases” and “receiving user input indicating classification of the at least one additional documents “ are additional elements and are insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation “retraining the model based at least in part on the user input indicating the classification of the additional documents”. This retraining step is an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks such as updating stored data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Furthermore, claims 13 and 21 recite the following additional elements “the model”, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer software components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
Furthermore, the “retraining the model based at least in part on the user input indicating the classification of the additional documents” limitation is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claims 13 and 21 as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claim 16 is similar to claim 8 and as such is rejected for the same reasons addressed with respect to the latter claim above.
Claim 18 depends from claim 14 and thus includes all the limitations of claim 14, therefore claim 18 recites the same abstract idea of "mental process".
Claim 18 furthermore recites determining, for individual ones of the documents marked as in class, a confidence value indicating a degree of confidence that the individual ones of the documents were marked correctly as in class; and determining a ranking of the individual ones of the documents marked as in class based at least in part on the confidence value.
Step 1: Claim 18 as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claim 18 recites limitations that are abstract ideas because it depends from claim 14 that recites mental processes.
The limitation “determining, for individual ones of the documents marked as in class, a confidence value indicating a degree of confidence that the individual ones of the documents were marked correctly as in class” and “determining a ranking of the individual ones of the documents marked as in class based at least in part on the confidence value” are mental steps. One can mentally determine a confidence value for selected data and a ranking of the data based on the determined confidence value as a selected criterion. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claim 18 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 18 does not recite any additional elements that would provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 18 as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Claim 19 is similar to claim 11 and as such is rejected for the same reasons addressed with respect to the latter claim above.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory} above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to place them within the four statutory categories of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11-14, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0213407 by Toivanen et al (hereafter Toivanen), as disclosed by Applicant in IDS dated 12/13/2022.
Referring to claim 2, Toivanen discloses a method [Abstract; para 44] comprising:
receiving documents that include at least one of patents or patent applications [input data includes patent documents retrieved, para 101-102];
generating first data representing the documents, the first data distinguishing components of the documents [patent documents are tokenized, para 103; see word clouds, Fig 4-5 and corresponding portions of specification; structured collection data form created from collected data, para 45, Fig 1];
filtering the components of the documents to a subset of the components [wherein the input raw data is filtered to extract the description section of each patent, para 102];
generating a user interface configured to display [user interface, para 31, 80, 81; Fig. 6,7]:
the subset of the components of individual ones of the documents, wherein displaying the subset of the components eliminates sending, receiving and processing of the components of the documents other than the subset of the components [wherein the filtered data is used as an input to preprocessing and tokenization, para 102; input data containing description sections of patents is tokenized and converted to vectors using bag-of words-representation, para 103; figures from the patent descriptions are excluded while selecting description section of patents, para 102; see word cloud visualization, Fig 4-5 and corresponding portions of specification];
an element configured to accept user input indicating whether the individual ones of the documents are in class or out of class [wherein the user can input any similar type of item based on the type of documents used to create the model- expert opinion, para 110];
generating a classification model based at least in part on user input data corresponding to the user input, the classification model trained utilizing at least a first portion of the documents indicated to be in class by the user input data [collection data form is modeled 100b to create a model of the collection data form using semi-supervised and supervised classification algorithm, para 47, Fig 1]; and
causing the user interface to display an indication of:
the first portion of the documents [overview display shows records pertaining to topics, para 135-136, Fig 7];
a second portion of the documents marked as out of class in response to the user input [in the GUI, the user can filter records by statistical threshold value (lower, higher or equal to) in one or more topics to isolate collections of documents for closer examination, para 137];
a third portion of the documents determined to be in class utilizing the classification model [curated collections of data are created through modelling generated topic area, para 149; GUI, para 9]; and
a fourth portion of the documents determined to be out of class utilizing the classification model [GUI allows for user to access network visualization and explore how different topics are related and for each collection document included in the model, para 143, Fig 9].
Referring to claim 6, Toivanen discloses a system [para 93-94], comprising: one or more processors; and non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising [para 184]:
generating first data representing documents received from one or more databases [patent documents are tokenized, para 103; see word clouds, Fig 4-5 and corresponding portions of specification; structured collection data form created from collected data, para 45, Fig 1];
filtering the components of the documents to a subset of the components [wherein the input raw data is filtered to extract the description section of each patent, para 102];
causing display of (1) an element configured to accept user input indicating whether individual ones of the documents are in class or out of class [wherein the user can input any similar type of item based on the type of documents used to create the model- expert opinion, para 110] and (2) the subset of the components of individual ones of the documents, wherein displaying the subset of the components eliminates sending, receiving and processing of the components of the documents other than the subset of the components [wherein the filtered data is used as an input to preprocessing and tokenization, para 102; input data containing description sections of patents is tokenized and converted to vectors using bag-of words-representation, para 103; figures from the patent descriptions are excluded while selecting description section of patents, para 102; see word cloud visualization, Fig 4-5 and corresponding portions of specification];
generating a model based at least in part on user input data corresponding to the user input [collection data form is modeled 100b to create a model of the collection data form using semi-supervised and supervised classification algorithm, para 47, Fig 1];
determining, utilizing the model, a first portion of the documents that are in class and a second portion of the documents that are out of class [semi-supervised and supervised classification algorithm used on data, para 47, Fig 1]; and
causing display of an indication of the first portion of the documents and the second portion of the documents [overview display shows records pertaining to topics, para 135-136, Fig 7; in the GUI, the user can filter records by statistical threshold value (lower, higher or equal to) in one or more topics to isolate collections of documents for closer examination, para 137].
Referring to claim 14, Toivanen discloses a method [Abstract; para 44], comprising:
generating first data representing documents received from one or more databases [patent documents are tokenized, para 103; see word clouds, Fig 4-5 and corresponding portions of specification; structured collection data form created from collected data, para 45, Fig 1];
filtering the components of the documents to a subset of the components [wherein the input raw data is filtered to extract the description section of each patent, para 102];
causing display of (1) an element configured to accept user input indicating whether individual ones of the documents are in class or out of class [wherein the user can input any similar type of item based on the type of documents used to create the model- expert opinion, para 110] and (2) the subset of the components of individual ones of the documents, wherein displaying the subset of the components eliminates sending, receiving and processing of the components of the documents other than the subset of the components [wherein the filtered data is used as an input to preprocessing and tokenization, para 102; input data containing description sections of patents is tokenized and converted to vectors using bag-of words-representation, para 103; figures from the patent descriptions are excluded while selecting description section of patents, para 102; see word cloud visualization, Fig 4-5 and corresponding portions of specification];
generating a model based at least in part on user input data corresponding to the user input [collection data form is modeled 100b to create a model of the collection data form using semi-supervised and supervised classification algorithm, para 47, Fig 1]; and
determining, based at least in part on the model and the user input data, a first portion of the documents that are in class and a second portion of the documents that are out of class [semi-supervised and supervised classification algorithm used on data, para 47, Fig 1].
Referring to claims 11 and 19, Toivanen discloses causing display of: a first indication of a first number of the documents marked in class in response to user input [overview display shows records pertaining to topics, para 135-136, Fig 7]; a second indication of a second number of the documents marked out of class in response to the user input [in the GUI, the user can filter records by statistical threshold value (lower, higher or equal to) in one or more topics to isolate collections of documents for closer examination, para 137]; a third indication of a third number of the documents determined to be in class utilizing the model [curated collections of data are created through modelling generated topic area, para 149; GUI, para 9]; and a fourth indication of a fourth number of the documents determined to be out of class utilizing the model [GUI allows for user to access network visualization and explore how different topics are related and for each collection document included in the model, para 143, Fig 9].
Referring to claim 4, Toivanen discloses receiving second user input indicating classification of at least one document determined to be in class utilizing the classification model; causing the classification model to be retrained based at least in part on second user input data corresponding to the second user input; determining a change in a number of the third portion of the documents marked in class utilizing the classification model as retrained; and causing display of an influence value of the second user input on output by the classification model, the influence value indicating a likelihood that additional user input will impact performance of the classification model [initial model, para 105; multiple rounds of classifying and selecting relevant data points to be reclassified until the number of items equals one, para 105-108].
Referring to claims 5, 9 and 17 Toivanen discloses: generating second data indicating a relationship between a first document of the documents and a second document of the documents, the relationship indicating that the first document includes at least one component that is similar to a component of the second document; determining that the user input data indicates that the first document is in class; and determining that the second document is in class based at least in part on the second data indicating the relationship [wherein curated collections of data are created through modelling generated topic area, para 149; GUI, para 9].
Claims 8 and 16 are similar to claim 4 and as such are rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Referring to claims 12 and 20, Toivanen discloses: causing display of: a first section indicating first keywords determined to be statistically relevant by the model for identifying the first portion of the documents; and a second section indicating second keywords determined to be statistically relevant by the model for identifying the second portion of the documents; and based at least in part on receiving the user input indicating that at least one of the first keywords or the second keywords should be removed, retraining the model to account for removal of the at least one of the first keywords or the second keywords [para 105-108].
Referring to claims 13 and 21, Toivanen discloses: searching, utilizing the model, one or more databases for additional documents determined to be in class by the model; receiving an instance of the additional documents from the one or more databases; receiving user input indicating classification of the additional documents; and retraining the model based at least in part on the user input indicating the classification of the additional documents [new data queried from data provider- infinite loop of updates, para 69-70].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 7, 10, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0213407 by Toivanen et al (hereafter Toivanen), as disclosed by Applicant in IDS dated 12/13/2022, as applied to claims 2, 6 and 14 above, and further in view of US 2020/0151591 by Li, as disclosed by Applicant in IDS dated 12/13/2022.
Referring to claims 3, 7 and 15, while Toivanen discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses that records are assigned relevance scores when determining similarity between records [para 136, 140, 156-158], it remains silent as to determining a first confidence value associated with results of the classification model; receiving second user input indicating classification of at least one document determined to be in class utilizing the classification model; causing the classification model to be retrained based at least in part on second user input data corresponding to the second user input; determining a second confidence value associated with results of the classification model as retrained; and causing display of a trendline representing a change from the first confidence value to the second confidence value.
Li discloses determining multiple confidence scores associated with multiple test predicted outputs generated using trained machine learning models [para 41, 155, 157], wherein if it is determined that the confidence and further confidence scores are above a predetermined threshold and affirmative, another set of documents are designated as being of a same document type as the initial set of documents [para 41].
Toivanen and Li are analogous art that are directed to the same field of endeavor- document analysis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the relevance score of Toivanen with the confidence scores of Li which are then used to retrain the classification model because it would achieve predictable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because while both Toivanen and Li disclose training a classification model [Toivanen, para 169], Li’s disclosure of a confidence score used to conduct multiple training rounds further refines the relevance score of documents in Toivanen as a similarity measure.
Referring to claims 10 and 18, while Toivanen discloses all of the above claimed subject matter, and also discloses that records are assigned relevance scores when determining similarity between records [para 136, 140, 156-158], it remains silent as to: determining, for individual ones of the documents marked as in class, a confidence value indicating a degree of confidence that the individual ones of the documents were marked correctly as in class; and determining a ranking of the individual ones of the documents marked as in class based at least in part on the confidence value. Li discloses generation of confidence scores associated with a first predicted output and that machine learning models are ranked based on prediction accuracy [para 38-39].
Toivanen and Li are analogous art that are directed to the same field of endeavor- document analysis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the relevance score of Toivanen with the confidence scores of Li and ranking the documents based on the scores because it would achieve predictable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because while both Toivanen and Li disclose training a classification model [Toivanen, para 169], Li’s disclosure of a confidence score that is used for ranking models further refines the relevance score of documents in Toivanen as a similarity measure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sager et al (US Patent 11,561,987) directed to: aggregate document analysis of input documents [Abstract; Fig 2, 30, 31 and related portions of specification];
Solmer et al (US Patent 12,141,732) directed to: modeling an entity based on semantics extracted from textual documents such as patent documents [ Fig 5-6 and related portions of specification];
George (US 2025/0251850) directed to: dynamic visualization of patent documents that provide for interactive GUI visuals [Abstract; entire document].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERYL M SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4018. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-270-1698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHERYL M SHECHTMANPatent Examiner
Art Unit 2164
/C.M.S/
/AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights