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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
An Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has not been submitted as of the mailing of the last Office Action dated 11 July 2025. Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this application.
Introductory Remarks
In response to communications filed on 26 September 2025, claims 1, 9, and 15 are amended per Applicant's request. Claims 3-4 and 18 are cancelled. No claims were withdrawn. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-2, 5-17, and 19-20 are presently pending in the application, of which claims 1, 9, and 15 are presented in independent form.
The previously raised 101 rejection of the pending claims is maintained.
The previously raised 103 rejection of the pending claims is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims. A new ground(s) of rejection has been issued.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 26 September 2025 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the claimed limitation of “generating, for contract elements within the main contract, a hierarchy of contract elements according to a semantic structure of the main contract [integrates any mental process that may be present into a practical application]” and that “Mental processes do not result in different user interface features being output to the user” (see Remarks, p. 12-13) is unpersuasive.
Firstly, simply generating a hierarchy of contract elements according to a semantic structure of the main contract was indicated in the last Office Action as being patent ineligible, as this falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, e.g., identifying sections and sub-sections. Such a step can be performed mentally by a person, e.g., with pen and paper in which a person draws out a hierarchy of a document using pen and paper.
Secondly, having different user interface features being output to a user is an insignificant extra-solution activity. The fact that the specific user interface features pertain to contract documents, however, as indicated in the 101 rejection, were found to fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (whereas “Mental processes” is another grouping of abstract ideas).
Applicant’s argument that the limitation of “‘generating, for contract elements within the main contract, a hierarchy of contract elements according to a semantic structure of the main contract’…reflects a technical improvement in how contracts are analyzed and understood by a computer system…[by] construct[ing] a semantic hierarchy, a structured representation of contract elements based on their meaning and relationships”, reciting certain purported improvements (see Remarks, p. 12) is unpersuasive.
Generating a hierarchy of contract elements according to a semantic structure of the main contract can be performed in the mind of a person. Stating that performing such a generation step in conjunction with a computer “reflects a technical improvement in how contracts are analyzed and understood by a computer system” is not an improvement to the computer functions itself (e.g., generating the hierarchy of contract elements), but rather a benefit that flows from performing the abstract idea in conjunction with a computer.
Secondly, Applicant’s argument rests on some sort of implied improvement, i.e., “a technical improvement in how contracts are analyzed and understood by a computer system”. Essentially, Applicant asserts that because the computer is capable of “generating…a hierarchy of contract elements according to a semantic structure of the main contract”, therefore the computer improves “how contracts are analyzed and understood by a computer system”. However, stating that because the computer performs such a step means that there must have been some sort of improvement to how a computer operates, is not an improvement. Rather, there must be a concrete embodiment within the claims, in which the claims themselves are directed to that improvement in the underlying technology, i.e., effect, cause, or result in that improvement. Essentially, it is [claimed steps] results in [improvement], whereas Applicant is arguing [improvement] results in [claimed steps].
Furthermore, Applicant’s argument that “Such processing is not something that can be performed by the human mind alone, nor is it a generic computer function” (see Remarks, p. 12) is unpersuasive. A person is capable of analyzing a contract document, i.e., determining the semantic structure of the main contract, and then draw out a hierarchy of contract elements, e.g., with pen and paper. Such concepts still fall under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant’s argument that “It demands specialized algorithms and models capable of interpreting legal language and building a structured representation, thereby transforming unstructured text into a machine-readable semantic graph. This constitutes a technical solution to the problem of understanding and managing complex legal documents” (see Remarks, p. 12-13) is unpersuasive.
Firstly, the claimed “algorithms” and “models” are invoked in a merely generic manner. Thus, the claimed steps do nothing more than recite the abstract idea while adding the words “apply it” with a computer, which does not amount to significantly more.
Secondly, if one were to replace the computing elements with a person, Applicant’s argument would be nothing more than “[people] capable of interpreting legal language and building a structured representation, thereby transforming unstructured text into a [human]-readable semantic graph.” As seen, this is something that is completely able to be performed by a person, whereas all the claims did was replace the “human” element with a computer. Automating mental tasks or processes, e.g., via a computer, does not amount to significantly more.
Lastly, again, Applicant is arguing that there is an improvement in what is needed to carry out the claimed steps, i.e., the claimed invention must have those components to carry out the claimed steps and thus effect the purported improvement. Again, this is not an improvement to the underlying technology itself, as Applicant does not even have any specifics with regards to how these “specialized algorithms and models” are “capable of interpreting legal language and building a structured representation” for actually generating the contract hierarchy. Implied technologies are not directed to an improvement to the underlying technology itself. Again, to reiterate from previously, only concrete embodiments as to how these claimed steps are actually carried out within the claims, in order to effect, i.e., result in or cause, those improvements, can be considered as improvements to the underlying technology.
And again, Applicant is arguing [improvement] results in [claimed steps], when it should be [claimed steps] results in [improvement].
Applicant’s argument that the claimed limitation of “‘building a title list for the contract elements within the main contract by collating a title associated with a contract element and a second title associated with a second contract element that is a parent node to the contract element within the hierarchy of contract elements’…further underscores the non-abstract nature of the invention by demonstrating a concrete and technical implementation of semantic processing” (see Remarks, p. 13) is unpersuasive.
More specifically, Applicant argues “It involves collating titles across hierarchical levels, which requires the system to understand the semantic context of each contract element. Through this process, the system synthesizes a composite title list that reflects both the local meaning of individual elements and the inherited semantic meaning from parent nodes within the hierarchy” (see Remarks, p. 13). A person is also capable of understanding the semantic context of each contract element, and synthesizing a composite title list that reflects both the local meaning of individual elements and inherited semantic meaning from parent nodes within the hierarchy.
Thus, there is no difference from simply automating a mental task or process. The requirements of the system are nothing more than a resulting goal or effect, rather than a particular manner of achieving the result. Essentially, this is unpersuasive, because all of applicant’s arguments simply state that a computer “must” perform these tasks; yet, there is nothing in these steps that necessarily require a computer beyond what is capable of being performed mentally by a person.
Additionally, Applicant argues “The use of the hierarchy to inform title construction is not a generic or routine task. Rather, it reflects a sophisticated application of natural language understanding tailored to the structure of legal documents” (see Remarks, p. 13) is unpersuasive. Again, simply stating that the computer “necessitates” natural language processing in order to perform such claimed steps are simply claims to implied improvements, rather than concrete embodiments of a particular technology to effect, i.e., result in, those improvements. And again, Applicant is arguing [improvement] results in [claimed steps], when it should be [claimed steps] results in [improvement].
Applicant’s argument’s conclusion that there is an improvement rendered as a result of this, and therefore “represents a concrete and inventive application of semantic NLP techniques specifically designed for legal document structures” (see Remarks, p. 13) is not persuasive, as what is actually being claimed is recited at a high level of generality (e.g., no specifics regarding the NLP technique itself, which is much more involved), but rather the result of any purported NLP techniques are being claimed. The functional nature of the claims confirms that the claims are abstract.
Applicant’s argument that the claims “use[] a specially trained [transformer] model to detect a topic shift within the contract change document and uses the detected shift to identify the final text portion in the change content” and that “A transformer model is not similar to a mental process” (see Remarks, p. 13) is unpersuasive, as Applicant merely recites steps that can be performed mentally by a person, with the exception of the computing elements performing the steps, which does nothing more than recite the abstract idea while adding the words “apply it” with a computer, which does not amount to significantly more.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are integrated into a practical application, citing Example 37 as an example (see Remarks, p. 14-16) are unpersuasive, as Claim 37 are directed to the user interface application itself, whereas the claimed invention are directed to consolidating and reconciling changes to be displayed within a contract document.
However, given that these are steps that can be performed mentally by a person, and that a person can, for example, manually compile changes into a single document as well (thus reciting an abstract idea), simply invoking the use of a user interface to display the unified contract document does nothing more than attempt to limit the claims to a particular technological environment—namely, implementation via computers. In other words, the claims do no more than recite the abstract idea while adding the words “apply it” with a computer, which does not amount to significantly more.
See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 121 USPQ2d 1928 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding that the claims were still directed to an abstract idea despite reciting retrieving information through a mobile interface, as the claims did not describe how the mobile interface communicated with other devices or any attributes of the mobile interface, aside from its broadly recited function; thus, the mobile interface did little more than provide a generic technological environment to allow users to access information, noting that an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet.
Therefore, for at least the aforementioned reasons and those set forth in the 101 rejection below, the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed 26 September 2025 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument with respect to Vandivere not disclosing “identifying the change introduction within the change instruction” and “identifying the change content within the change instruction” (see Remarks, p. 18-19) are unpersuasive. Applicant erroneously characterizes Vandivere as pertaining to “look[ing] for matching paragraphs in the two documents that conflict” (see Remarks, p. 18).
Firstly, Applicant’s arguments are not on point with respect to what was cited in the Office Action. For example, this particular claim language being argued by Applicant corresponds to, e.g., to Applicant’s Specification, [FIG. 7], which shows a sample change, e.g., “Recitals. Recital A of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:”. This can be seen also in Vandivere’s amendment 1004C, which includes the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language:”. Applicant is recommended to consider the rejection in its entirety, as the rest of what Applicant is arguing against already appears in rejecting the earlier claim limitation. It was not necessary to repeat what had already been previously mapped, as it had already been previously addressed. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments, in their entirety with respect to this language, are moot for not directly addressing what was cited and mapped in the Office Action.
Secondly, references qualify as (analogous) prior art if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2101.(a). Therefore, even if Vandivere were applied to a different problem (which it does not, as established in the first point above), Applicant’s argument as Vandivere pertaining to some different problem is unpersuasive, as a reference still qualifies as prior art when the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, even if it addresses a different problem.
Applicant’s argument that “[in Vandivere,] only the input of an amendment with an introduction and content is taught…. However, it is silent regarding what it does with the introduction. There is no teaching that it is not displayed” (see Remarks, p. 19-20) is unpersuasive.
This was already addressed in the 103 rejection. Applicant is recommended to read the rejection in its entirety, as these were addressed in different portions of the rejection. In a sense, Applicant is making piecemeal arguments, rather than looking at the rejection in its entirety, in which these interpretation aspects had already been addressed. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for at least the reasons already set forth in the 103 rejection, as the 103 rejection had already addressed these.
Applicant’s argument that Vandivere does not utilize a transformer model, i.e., “does not disclose or suggest using transformer models or any machine learning technique for topic shift detection…[relying] on structural or rule-based cues, which may misidentify change boundaries and result in less accurate topic shift detection” (see Remarks, p. 20) is unpersuasive.
Firstly, a transformer model is simply a machine learning model that is capable of performing the disclosed function. There is no other detail to this transformer model, other than that it was simply a name given to a machine learning model to perform the disclosed function. The cited portion of Vandivere did disclose a trained machine learning model to identify categories and subcategories.
Secondly, Applicant’s argument that there is no “topic shift detection” because Vandivere utilizes “structural or rule-based cues” to perform the disclosed steps is unpersuasive. The “topic shift detection” claimed by Applicant is not any sort of specific steps such as principal component analysis for example, but rather a functional step to indicate that there are detections in topic shifts. How exactly this is performed is not claimed nor described by the Specification. At the most, the Specification states that a “topical shift occurs between consecutive elements…” (see, e.g., Specification, [0060]). Therefore, “topical shift detection” is the end result, not a particular method. Vandivere discloses being able to detect changes in topics, regardless of the manner by which this is accomplished. Therefore, Vandivere discloses this particular claimed limitation.
Applicant’s argument that Vandivere does not disclose “determining editing intent by evaluating action words” but rather “uses a set of rules. It processes changes without semantic analysis of verbs, limiting its ability to classify edits accurately and resulting in a less intelligent integration process” (see Remarks, p. 20) is also unpersuasive for a similar reason as above, in which the claimed step of “editing intent by evaluating action words” is more of a result rather than a particular step. The purported improvement is not relevant, as the claim pertains to simply a high-level step of “determining editing intent by evaluating action words”, without stating any particular manner by which this is accomplished. Therefore, Vandivere is, in fact, a more detailed description of “determining editing intent by evaluating action words”, and therefore discloses such a claimed limitation.
Applicant’s argument that Vandivere does not disclose “excluding change introduction content from the unified contract view” (see Remarks, p. 20-21) is unpersuasive, as Applicant appears to be ignoring what was written specifically in the Office Action. To reiterate from above, even if Vandivere were applied to a different problem (which it does not, as established in the first point above), Applicant’s argument as Vandivere pertaining to some different problem is unpersuasive, as a reference still qualifies as prior art when the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, even if it addresses a different problem.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 3-4, 9, 11-12, and 18-19 with respect to Wang not disclosing a “change document” and “would not exclude a change instruction from a merged view (see Remarks, p. 22), Vagell (in claims 7-8 and 16) not describing a “change document” (see Remarks, p. 22), Zheng (in claim 10) not describing “a separate main document and change documents” (see Remarks, p. 23), and Kaza (in claims 13-14) not describing “a separate main document and change documents” (see Remarks, p. 23-24) are unpersuasive, as Applicant is attacking references individually where the rejection was based on a combination of references (i.e., primary reference Vandivere was cited to disclose these claimed features).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim recites dependency on a cancelled claim (claim 18). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. For purposes of examination, Claim 19 has been interpreted to be dependent on independent claim 15.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 15 recite various identification and determination steps at a high level of generality, i.e., identifying a change instruction for a main contract within a contract change document wherein the change instruction includes a change introduction and a change content (with more specifics about the change introduction and change content), identifying the change introduction within the change instruction, identifying the change content within the change instruction, identifying a final text portion of the change content by identifying a topic shift between the final text portion and a subsequent text portion within the contract change document, determining an editing intent associated with the change instruction by evaluating one or more action words in the change instruction, identifying within the change introduction, a target element in the main contract to be changed, wherein the target element is identified by matching content in the change instruction to a title of the target element in the title list, generating a unified contract (view) that depicts the main contract including the target element modified according to the editing intent and the change content. Such steps encompass an evaluation, observation, and/or judgment, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Furthermore, the step of generating a unified contract view that depicts the target element modified according to the editing intent and the change content, also falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” as such steps pertain to collaborative document editing (i.e., these steps being part of the rendering step of collaborative document editing), e.g., a person would be able to read the contract change document, decide which section in the contract would be the appropriate element (i.e., the target element), and change that particular section accordingly based on the contract change document information.
The independent claims further recite generating a hierarchy of contract elements (according to a semantic structure of the main contract). Similarly, this falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, e.g., identifying sections and sub-sections, which may be represented (e.g., drawn) as a hierarchy (e.g., tree).
The independent claims further recite building a title list for the target element by collating a title associated with the target element and a second title associated with a second contract element that is a parent node to the target element within the hierarchy of contract elements. This encompasses an evaluation, observation, and/or judgment, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 7 recites receiving an interaction with the unified contract view and causing the change instruction to be output for display. This falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”.
Dependent claim 8 recites receiving a user interaction with a section-change interface and, in response to the user interaction, updating a characteristic of the target element. This also falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”.
Dependent claim 10 recites adjusting the hierarchy of contract elements in response to a user input. This encompasses an evaluation, observation, and/or judgment, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 11 and 17 recite determining a section title from the change instruction/introduction. Relatedly, dependent claims 12 and 19 recite identifying the target element by matching the section title from the change instruction/introduction with an assigned title of the target element. These encompass an evaluation, observation, and/or judgment, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 14 recites displaying the main contract with the target element’s content edited and displayed at the location instead of original content associated with the target element. This falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”.
Dependent claim 16 recites identifying an editing verb within the change introduction from a plurality of designated verbs. This encompasses an evaluation, observation, and/or judgment, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
With the exception of limitations reciting the use of a computing system and various hardware components, nothing in the claims preclude the claimed steps from being practically performed in the mind. If a claim limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then such claims still fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, other limitations recite “certain methods of organizing human activity” but for the recitation of such computing elements as described. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claims overall recite that the data pertains to contracts. However, this is nothing more than an insignificant field-of-use limitation, describing the context rather than a particular manner of achieving the result. Similarly, the claims variously describe the type of information broadly involved, which are nothing more than insignificant field-of-use limitations, describing the context rather than a particular manner of achieving the result. More particularly, such limitations included:
that the hierarchy is generated “according to a semantic structure” of the document (Claims 1, 9, and 15);
that titles are collated (Claims 1, 9, and 15);
using a transformer model trained to identify topic shifts to perform identification of a final text portion of the change content (Claims 1, 9, and 15);
the unified contract view (that depicts the main contract) does not include any portion of content from the change introduction (Claims 1, 9, and 15);
the target element is associated with a part type, content, and a bounding box indicating a location for the target element within the target element within the main contract, and wherein the part type for the target element matches an expected part type identified in the change instruction (Claim 2);
that the change document includes the change instruction and secondary content that does not define a change to the main contract, and wherein the secondary contract is not included in the unified contract view (Claims 5 and 20);
wherein the editing intent is selected from a group consisting of a delete intent, a replace intent, and an insert intent (Claim 6);
that an interaction is received via a “section-change interface” (Claim 8);
that the hierarchy of contract elements is adjusted “in response to a user input provided through a section editing interface” (Claim 10);
that the information involves section titles (Claims 11-12, 17, and 19);
that the target element is associated with a bounding box indicating a location for the target element within the main contract (Claim 13); and
that natural language processing is performed on the contract change document in order to provide the identification steps (Claim 15).
Lastly, the claims further recite insignificant extra-solution activities, including causing display of a view (Claims 1, 7, 9, 14, and 15); and receiving data (Claims 7 and 8).
Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application of the idea.
The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of various computing hardware components, which amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 14, and 15 recite displaying a view; and claims 7 and 8 recite receiving data. These are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (“Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” with regards to the receiving and displaying steps; and “Presenting offers and gathering statistics” with regards to the displaying step).
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the claimed elements do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a series of abstract steps at a high level of generality, and reciting the generic factors that were involved in some of the identification/determination steps. However, this has previously been found by the courts to be abstract. See, e.g., CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that the claims contained no hint as to how the information regarding Internet transactions were sorted, weighed, and ultimately converted into a useable conclusion that a particular transaction was fraudulent, and thus were even more abstract than the claims in Flook); see also, e.g., Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV., 838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016) at p. 7-8 (“At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea”); and Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), slip op. 12 (“[The] essentially result-focused, functional character of claim language has been a frequent feature of claims held ineligible under § 101”).
Thus, despite the claims’ attempt to narrow the claims to particular types of information, such limitations do not move the claims outside the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018) at p. 12) (finding that the claimed limitations attempting to narrow the claimed statistical methods to bootstrap, jackknife, and cross-validation were all particular methods of resampling, thus doing no more than simply providing further narrowing of what were still mathematical operations, and added nothing outside the abstract realm).
In other words, at this level of generality, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, and without providing any limiting detail that confines the claims to a particular solution to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claims confirm that they are directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of the idea.
A desired goal (i.e., result or effect), absent of structural or procedural means for achieving that goal, is an abstract idea. In this case, the claims are directed to an abstract idea for failing to describe how—by what particular process or structure—the goal is accomplished. Even with the additional elements, the claimed limitations fail to restrict how the goal is accomplished.
Thus, for at least the aforementioned reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 11-12, 15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandivere et al. (“Vandivere”) (US 11,226,720 B1), in view of Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 2013/0021344 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Vandivere teaches A method comprising:
identifying, within a contract change document, a change instruction for a main contract, wherein the change instruction includes a change introduction and a change content, wherein the contract change document is a first document and the main contract is a second document that is separate from the first document, wherein the change instruction is a portion of text in the contract change document, wherein the change introduction is a first portion of the change instruction that specifies an edit to be made and identifies a target segment to be changed within the main contract, and wherein the change content is a second portion of text within the change instruction that describes a change to be made to the target segment in the main contract (Vandivere, [21:11-44], where amendment 1004C is received as a sequential document 1112 (i.e., “contract change document”). The amendment 1004C includes paragraphs 1116 and 1118, such that the amendment 1004C includes the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language:” (i.e., “change introduction”) of paragraph 1116 (i.e., “change content”), in which the combination of the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language:” and the paragraph 1116 correspond to the claimed “change instruction”. Amendment 1004C is received as a sequential document 1112 (i.e., “contract change document”). The amendment 1004C includes paragraphs 1116 and 1118, such that the amendment 1004C includes the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language:” (i.e., “change introduction”) of paragraph 1116 (i.e., “change content”). Because this results in a change being applied to the contract document, e.g., by updating categories and subcategories (associated with a particular location of the contract document) using text from paragraph 1116 of Amendment 1004C, this implies that the change introduction was identified.
See Vandivere, [21:11-44], where the system receives exemplar documents and an amendment 1004C that is received as a sequential document 1112 (i.e., “wherein the change document is a first document and the main contract is a second document that is separate from the first document”). See also Vandivere, [4:35-38] and [19:18-30], where the received exemplar documents may pertain to an original contract document, and documents may include amendments such as contract documents);
identifying the change introduction within the change instruction; identifying the change content within the change instruction (Vandivere, [21:11-44], where in response to processing the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language:” of paragraph 1116, the category “royalties on oil and gas” previously associated with previously processed paragraph 1106 is now associated with amended paragraph 1116, and replaces the association of the text of paragraph 1106 to the same category, i.e., “royalties on oil and gas”, resulting in associations now being updated to conform with the text processed in the amendment 1004C (implying that the “change introduction” within the change instruction, i.e., “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language:”, was identified in order to perform the replacement of paragraph 1106, as was the content that was to be amended (i.e., “identifying the change content within the change instruction”), since paragraph 1106 was amended accordingly));
identifying, using a transformer model trained to identify topic shifts, a final text portion of the change content by identifying a topic shift between the final text portion and a subsequent text portion within the contract change document (Vandivere, [5:61-67]-[6:1-6], where extracted text may be fed into a trained machine learning model to identify categories and subcategories, where it associates with particular sections of text. Thus, even if a document does not include particular section titles, spacing key-words, or other identifiers, extracted text may still be associated with an appropriate category. Thus, Vandivere implicitly discloses the claimed “topic shift between the final text portion and a subsequent text portion” (which indicates that there is an end to one document portion corresponding to a particular topic, and the beginning of another subsequent document portion corresponding to another topic), as Vandivere does not rely on particular section titles, etc., to identify particular sections of text for extracting those paragraphs and classifying those sections into categories and subcategories. Recall from Vandivere, [4:35-38] and [19:18-30], where the document may be an amendment to contract documents.
Although Vandivere does not appear to explicitly state that multiple amendments are within the same received document, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Vandivere such that multiple amendments are received within the same (change) document (and thus, obvious to apply Vandivere’s disclosure of classifying a document’s sections/paragraphs into certain categories and subcategories), with the motivation of enabling users to upload multiple amendments using a single document, which may be more convenient for the user (e.g., instead of uploading each separate amendment one-by-one into the system));
determining an editing intent associated with the change instruction by evaluating one or more action words in the change instruction (Vandivere, [21:11-64], where received document 1112 is identified as an amendment by the conflict check module using a rule-based logic and/or machine learning, even when there is no explicit identification that the document being processed is an amending document. See Vandivere, [22:45-62], where the system can identify amendments, addendum, and other later added or rewritten material relative to some original document or set of original documents, in which amendments may alter or eliminate original provisions, and entirely new provisions may first appear in an amendment (implying an editing intent was determined in order to alter the document in accordance with the received amendment document.
See Vandivere, [21:11-44], where in response to processing the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language:” of paragraph 1116, the category “royalties on oil and gas” previously associated with previously processed paragraph 1106 is now associated with amended paragraph 1116, and replaces the association of the text of paragraph 1106 to the same category, i.e., “royalties on oil and gas”, resulting in associations now being updated to conform with the text processed in the amendment 1004C (implying that the word “replace” was an action word that was identified and evaluated from the amendment document, i.e., “change instruction”));
identifying, within the change introduction, a target element in the main contract to be changed, wherein the target element is identified by matching content in the change instruction to a title of the target element … (Vandivere, [18:46-64], where system 1000 may identify portions of an amendment as the same category and/or subcategory as portions of the main body of a respective document (i.e., “main contract”). See Vandivere, [19:18-30], where, e.g., “royalties on oil and gas” may be identified in the original contract document and repeated in a third amending document, which causes a value associated with “royalties on oil and gas” to increment. See also Vandivere, [21:11-44], where amendment 1004C includes paragraphs 1116 and 1118, in which 1118 replaces the text of previously processed paragraph 1106, as a response to processing the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language” (i.e., “identifying, within the change introduction, a target element in the main contract to be changed”), and replaces the association of the text of paragraph 1106 to the same category (i.e., “royalties on oil and gas”) (i.e., “target element in the main contract to be changed”), resulting in the association being updated to conform with the text processed in the amendment 1004C (i.e., “wherein the target element is identified by matching content in the change instruction to a title of the target element”));
generating a unified contract view that depicts the main contract including the target element modified according to the editing intent and the change content and does not include any portion of content from the change introduction (Vandivere, [22:45-62], where the system can identify amendments, addendum, and other later added or rewritten material relative to some original document or set of original documents, in which amendments may alter or eliminate original provisions, and entirely new provisions may first appear in an amendment (implying that the target provisions (i.e., “target element”) were modified in accordance with the received amendment document that was associated with an editing intent, e.g., altering, eliminating, or adding new provisions).
See Vandivere, [20:24-35], where when repeated categories and subcategories are associated with conflicting language, the text from less recent document (e.g., the original document) is disassociated from the category or subcategory, and the association of the text of the most recent document and the category or subcategory is maintained. The updated categories and/or subcategory are then provided to document mark-up 414A (operation 908). See Vandivere, [14:64-65]-[15:1-11], where the document mark-up module 414A receives the data object 412B and generates a data object to be sent to the display 450 that contains, e.g., items and mappings of the sentence text strings to an image of the Example Document Text so that an interface may be provided to a user in the vein of, e.g., FIG. 6. See also Vandivere, [22:63-67]-[23:1-4], where the system may chronologically order an original contract and later amendments as well as correctly update identified categories and subcategories to ensure that the list of categories and subcategories provided to the user are not out of date and are linked to the correct text location within the document image.
See Vandivere, [21:11-44], where the header element 1114 describing a respective document as an amendment is not included within the contract document (only, e.g., paragraph 1116 of the change/amendment document) (i.e., “does not include any portion of change content from the change instruction”)); and
causing the unified contract view to be output for display (Vandivere, [FIGs. 5-6] and [15:11-67]-[16:1-48], where a contract document is displayed to the user with the left-hand side corresponding to categories and subcategories of the contract document and the right-hand side displaying the document. Recall from Vandivere, [14:64-65]-[15:1-11], [20:24-35], and [22:63-67]-[23:1-4], above, where categories and subcategories provided to the user are updated and provided to the user for display, which ensures that the categories and subcategories are not out of date (i.e., “unified contract view”) and are linked to the correct text location within the document image).
Vandivere does not appear to explicitly teach generating, for contract elements within the main contract, a hierarchy of contract elements according to a semantic structure of the main contract; building a title list for the contract elements within the main contract by collating a title associated with a contract element and a second title associated with a second contract element that is a parent node to the contract element within the hierarchy of contract elements; [and wherein the target element is] in the title list.
Wang teaches generating, for contract elements within the main contract, a hierarchy of contract elements according to a semantic structure of the main contract (Wang, [0054], where each document page 310 includes text content 320, and since textual content often includes a textual hierarchy, the words, phrases, sentences, and/or paragraphs of the electronic document 300 can be further divided into logical sub-parts, which in turn may be further divided into logical sub-sub-parts, and so on. The textual hierarchy can be identified from selected indicia or other information included within the electronic document 300, such as section headings 330, section numberings 340, and/or format changes provided at a beginning region of each text section. See Wang, [0055], where if a textual hierarchy exists for the electronic document, the system may generate the associated segment hierarchy, and can associate each relevant document segment 390 with a hierarchical level.
See also Wang, [0067], where the system segments the text content 320 of the electronic document 300 which includes dividing the electronic document 300 into document segments which corresponding with the logical parts (or sections), such as words, phrases, sentences, and/or paragraphs. To divide the electronic document 300 into document segments 390, a segmentation classifier is applied to the electronic document 300, where the segmentation classifier may include text-based features and/or semantic features.
See Wang, [0048], where the incoming document 100 may include contracts);
building a title list for the contract elements within the main contract by collating a title associated with a contract element and a second title associated with a second contract element that is a parent node to the contract element within the hierarchy of contract elements (Wang, [0072], where the paragraphs 380 that form the document segments 390 are associated with section heading 330 (i.e., “collating a title associated with [an element]”) and section numberings 340, where the document processing method initially identifies the section heading 330 and associates the section heading 330 with the top level of the segment hierarchy. See also Wang, [0075] and [0077], where section heading 330 (i.e., “second title associated with a second element that is a parent node to the target element within the hierarchy of elements”) and section subheadings 332 (i.e., “title associated with the target element”) are identified.
See also Wang, [0080], where the system divides the text content 320 of the selected page 310 into document segments 390, identify blocks of text content 320, and if appropriate, creating a segment hierarchy among the document segments 390. The text content 320 of the selected page 310 is grouped into the section heading 440 (i.e., “parent node to the target element within the hierarchy of elements”) and section sub-headings 450 (i.e., “target element”). Recall from Wang, [0048], where the incoming document 100 may include contracts; see also Wang, [0076], where the page type may have been identified as “contract”); [and]
[wherein the target element is] in the title list (Wang, [0072-0074], where the document processing method 200 initially identifies the section heading 330 and associates the section heading 330 with the top level of the segment hierarchy, and determines that section numbering 340D corresponds with section heading 330. Segments 390A, 390B, 390C, etc., corresponding with the section numberings, and thus are associated with that level of the hierarchy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Vandivere and Wang (hereinafter “Vandivere as modified”) with the motivation of analyzing segments in order to contextualize documents and their content, thereby reducing the complexity of the comparison process for different versions of the same document or across different documents (see, e.g., Wang, [0088-0089], and [0196]), in addition to aiding the reviewer in reviewing a document (see, e.g., Wang, [0195]), by highlighting the differences and bringing such differences to the attention of the reviewer.
Regarding claim 5: Vandivere as modified teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the contract change document includes the change instruction and secondary content that does not define a change to the main contract, and wherein the secondary content is not included in the unified contract view (Vandivere, [21:11-44], where the header element 1114 describing a respective document as an amendment is not included within the contract document (only, e.g., paragraph 1116 of the change/amendment document) (i.e., the header corresponding to “secondary content that does not define a change to the main contract, and wherein the secondary content is not included in the unified contract view”). Amendment 1004C includes paragraphs 1116 and 1118, in which 1118 replaces the text of previously processed paragraph 1106, as a response to processing the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language” (i.e., “change instruction”)).
Regarding claim 6: Vandivere as modified teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the editing intent is selected from a group consisting of a delete intent, a replace intent, and an insert intent (Vandivere, [21:11-44], where the amendment pertains to, e.g., the category “royalty on oil and gas”, and the amendment includes paragraphs 1116 and 1118, resulting in the category being associated with the text of paragraph 1118 and replacing the association of the text of previously processed paragraph 1106 to the same category (i.e., “royalties on oil and gas”). The category may still be associated with the text of other documents, however, and its associations have now been updated to conform with the text processed in the amendment 1004C. See also Vandivere, [22:45-62], where the system can identify amendments, addendum, and other later added or rewritten material relative to some original document or set of original documents, in which amendments may alter or eliminate original provisions, and entirely new provisions may first appear in an amendment (implying an editing intent was determined)).
Regarding claim 9: Vandivere teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising (Vandivere, [21:65-67]-[22:1-44], where non-transitory tangible computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions for implementing the disclosed computing system may be utilized, and that the computing system 1200 includes main memory including computer executable instructions that, when run on processor 1204, implement the disclosed methods):
identifying, within a contract change document, a change instruction for a main contract, wherein the change instruction includes a change introduction and a change content, wherein the contract change document is a first document and the main contract is a second document that is separate from the first document, wherein the change instruction is a portion of text in the contract change document, wherein the change introduction is a first portion of the change instruction that specifies an edit to be made and identifies a target segment to be changed within the main contract, and wherein the change content is a second portion of text within the change instruction that describes a change to be made to the target segment in the main contract ((Vandivere, [21:11-44], where amendment 1004C is received as a sequential document 1112 (i.e., “contract change document”). The amendment 1004C includes paragraphs 1116 and 1118, such that the amendment 1004C includes the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language:” (i.e., “change introduction”) of paragraph 1116 (i.e., “change content”). Amendment 1004C is received as a sequential document 1112 (i.e., “contract change document”). The amendment 1004C includes paragraphs 1116 and 1118, such that the amendment 1004C includes the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language:” (i.e., “change introduction”) of paragraph 1116 (i.e., “change content”), in which the combination of the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language:” and the paragraph 1116 correspond to the claimed “change instruction”. Because this results in a change being applied to the contract document, e.g., by updating categories and subcategories (associated with a particular location of the contract document) using text from paragraph 1116 of Amendment 1004C, this implies that the change introduction was identified.
See Vandivere, [21:11-44], where the system receives exemplar documents and an amendment 1004C that is received as a sequential document 1112 (i.e., “wherein the change document is a first document and the main contract is a second document that is separate from the first document”). See also Vandivere, [4:35-38] and [19:18-30], where the received exemplar documents may pertain to an original contract document, and documents may include amendments such as contract documents);
identifying the change introduction within the change instruction; identifying the change content within the change instruction (Vandivere, [21:11-44], where in response to processing the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language:” of paragraph 1116, the category “royalties on oil and gas” previously associated with previously processed paragraph 1106 is now associated with amended paragraph 1116, and replaces the association of the text of paragraph 1106 to the same category, i.e., “royalties on oil and gas”, resulting in associations now being updated to conform with the text processed in the amendment 1004C (implying that the “change introduction” within the change instruction, i.e., “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language:”, was identified in order to perform the replacement of paragraph 1106, as was the content that was to be amended (i.e., “identifying the change content within the change instruction”), since paragraph 1106 was amended accordingly));
identifying, using a transformer model trained to identify topic shifts, a final text portion of the change content by identifying a topic shift between the final text portion and a subsequent text portion within the contract change document (Vandivere, [5:61-67]-[6:1-6], where extracted text may be fed into a trained machine learning model to identify categories and subcategories, where it associates with particular sections of text. Thus, even if a document does not include particular section titles, spacing key-words, or other identifiers, extracted text may still be associated with an appropriate category. Thus, Vandivere implicitly discloses the claimed “topic shift between the final text portion and a subsequent text portion” (which indicates that there is an end to one document portion corresponding to a particular topic, and the beginning of another subsequent document portion corresponding to another topic), as Vandivere does not rely on particular section titles, etc., to identify particular sections of text for extracting those paragraphs and classifying those sections into categories and subcategories. Recall from Vandivere, [4:35-38] and [19:18-30], where the document may be an amendment to contract documents.
Although Vandivere does not appear to explicitly state that multiple amendments are within the same received document, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Vandivere such that multiple amendments are received within the same (change) document (and thus, obvious to apply Vandivere’s disclosure of classifying a document’s sections/paragraphs into certain categories and subcategories), with the motivation of enabling users to upload multiple amendments using a single document, which may be more convenient for the user (e.g., instead of uploading each separate amendment one-by-one into the system));
identifying, using the change introduction …, a target element in the main contract to be changed, wherein the target element is identified by matching content in the change instruction to a title of the target element … (Vandivere, [18:46-64], where system 1000 may identify portions of an amendment as the same category and/or subcategory as portions of the main body of a respective document (i.e., “main contract”). See Vandivere, [19:18-30], where, e.g., “royalties on oil and gas” may be identified in the original contract document and repeated in a third amending document, which causes a value associated with “royalties on oil and gas” to increment. See also Vandivere, [21:11-44], where amendment 1004C includes paragraphs 1116 and 1118, in which 1118 replaces the text of previously processed paragraph 1106, as a response to processing the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language” (i.e., “identifying, within the change introduction, a target element in the main contract to be changed”), and replaces the association of the text of paragraph 1106 to the same category (i.e., “royalties on oil and gas”) (i.e., “target element in the main contract to be changed”), resulting in the association being updated to conform with the text processed in the amendment 1004C (i.e., “wherein the target element is identified by matching content in the change instruction to a title of the target element”));
generating a unified contract view that depicts the main contract including the target element modified according to the change introduction and the change content and does not include any portion of content from the change introduction (Vandivere, [22:45-62], where the system can identify amendments, addendum, and other later added or rewritten material relative to some original document or set of original documents, in which amendments may alter or eliminate original provisions, and entirely new provisions may first appear in an amendment (implying that the target provisions (i.e., “target element”) were modified in accordance with the received amendment document that was associated with an editing intent, e.g., altering, eliminating, or adding new provisions).
See Vandivere, [20:24-35], where when repeated categories and subcategories are associated with conflicting language, the text from less recent document (e.g., the original document) is disassociated from the category or subcategory, and the association of the text of the most recent document and the category or subcategory is maintained. The updated categories and/or subcategory are then provided to document mark-up 414A (operation 908). See Vandivere, [14:64-65]-[15:1-11], where the document mark-up module 414A receives the data object 412B and generates a data object to be sent to the display 450 that contains, e.g., items and mappings of the sentence text strings to an image of the Example Document Text so that an interface may be provided to a user in the vein of, e.g., FIG. 6. See also Vandivere, [22:63-67]-[23:1-4], where the system may chronologically order an original contract and later amendments as well as correctly update identified categories and subcategories to ensure that the list of categories and subcategories provided to the user are not out of date and are linked to the correct text location within the document image.
See Vandivere, [21:11-44], where the header element 1114 describing a respective document as an amendment is not included within the contract document (only, e.g., paragraph 1116 of the change/amendment document) (i.e., “does not include any portion of content from the change instruction”)); and
causing the unified contract view to be output for display (Vandivere, [FIGs. 5-6] and [15:11-67]-[16:1-48], where a contract document is displayed to the user with the left-hand side corresponding to categories and subcategories of the contract document and the right-hand side displaying the document. Recall from Vandivere, [14:64-65]-[15:1-11], [20:24-35], and [22:63-67]-[23:1-4], above, where categories and subcategories provided to the user are updated and provided to the user for display, which ensures that the categories and subcategories are not out of date (i.e., “unified contract view”) and are linked to the correct text location within the document image).
Vandivere does not appear to explicitly teach generating, for contract elements within the main contract, a hierarchy of contract elements; building a title list for the contract elements within the main contract by collating a title associated with a contract element and a second title associated with a second contract element that is a parent node to the contract element within the hierarchy of contract elements; [and identifying, using] the hierarchy of contract elements[, a target element in the main contract to be changed], [wherein the target element is] in the title list.
Wang teaches generating, for contract elements within the main contract, a hierarchy of contract elements (Wang, [0054], where each document page 310 includes text content 320, and since textual content often includes a textual hierarchy, the words, phrases, sentences, and/or paragraphs of the electronic document 300 can be further divided into logical sub-parts, which in turn may be further divided into logical sub-sub-parts, and so on. The textual hierarchy can be identified from selected indicia or other information included within the electronic document 300, such as section headings 330, section numberings 340, and/or format changes provided at a beginning region of each text section. See Wang, [0055], where if a textual hierarchy exists for the electronic document, the system may generate the associated segment hierarchy, and can associate each relevant document segment 390 with a hierarchical level.
See also Wang, [0067], where the system segments the text content 320 of the electronic document 300 which includes dividing the electronic document 300 into document segments which corresponding with the logical parts (or sections), such as words, phrases, sentences, and/or paragraphs. To divide the electronic document 300 into document segments 390, a segmentation classifier is applied to the electronic document 300, where the segmentation classifier may include text-based features and/or semantic features.
See Wang, [0048], where the incoming document 100 may include contracts);
building a title list for the contract elements within the main contract by collating a title associated with a contract element and a second title associated with a second contract element that is a parent node to the contract element within the hierarchy of contract elements (Wang, [0072], where the paragraphs 380 that form the document segments 390 are associated with section heading 330 (i.e., “collating a title associated with [an element]”) and section numberings 340, where the document processing method initially identifies the section heading 330 and associates the section heading 330 with the top level of the segment hierarchy. See also Wang, [0075] and [0077], where section heading 330 (i.e., “second title associated with a second element that is a parent node to the target element within the hierarchy of elements”) and section subheadings 332 (i.e., “title associated with the target element”) are identified.
See also Wang, [0080], where the system divides the text content 320 of the selected page 310 into document segments 390, identify blocks of text content 320, and if appropriate, creating a segment hierarchy among the document segments 390. The text content 320 of the selected page 310 is grouped into the section heading 440 (i.e., “parent node to the target element within the hierarchy of elements”) and section sub-headings 450 (i.e., “target element”). Recall from Wang, [0048], where the incoming document 100 may include contracts; see also Wang, [0076], where the page type may have been identified as “contract”); [and]
[identifying, using] the hierarchy of contract elements[, a target element in the main contract to be changed] (Wang, [0112-0114], where the system calculates a segment-level edit distance between the original electronic document 300O and the reference electronic document 300R by comparing the original document segments to the reference document segments, where each document segment 390O, 390R thereby can be inserted, deleted, and/or replaced from one of the electronic document. The edit distance process thereby can find the smallest edit cost (or the best match) between the original and reference electronic documents), [wherein the target element is] in the title list (Wang, [0072-0074], where the document processing method 200 initially identifies the section heading 330 and associates the section heading 330 with the top level of the segment hierarchy, and determines that section numbering 340D corresponds with section heading 330. Segments 390A, 390B, 390C, etc., corresponding with the section numberings, and thus are associated with that level of the hierarchy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Vandivere and Wang (hereinafter “Vandivere as modified”) with the motivation of analyzing segments in order to contextualize documents and their content, thereby reducing the complexity of the comparison process for different versions of the same document or across different documents (see, e.g., Wang, [0088-0089], and [0196]), in addition to aiding the reviewer in reviewing a document (see, e.g., Wang, [0195]), by highlighting the differences and bringing such differences to the attention of the reviewer.
Regarding claim 11: Vandivere as modified teaches The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the method further comprises determining a section title from the change instruction (Vandivere, [21:11-44], where amendment 1004C includes paragraphs 1116 and 1118, in which 1118 replaces the text of previously processed paragraph 1106, as a response to processing the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language” (i.e., “Provision 3(a)(i) corresponding to the claimed “section title”), and replaces the association of the text of paragraph 1106 to the same category, i.e., “royalties on oil and gas” (implying that the section title “Provision 3(a)(i)” was identified from the language)).
Regarding claim 12: Vandivere as modified teaches The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the identifying the target element comprises matching the section title from the change instruction with an assigned title of the target element (Vandivere, [21:11-44], where amendment 1004C includes paragraphs 1116 and 1118, in which 1118 replaces the text of previously processed paragraph 1106, as a response to processing the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language” (i.e., “Provision 3(a)(i) corresponding to the claimed “section title”), and replaces the association of the text of paragraph 1106 to the same category, i.e., “royalties on oil and gas” (i.e., “assigned title of the target element”) (the association implying that a “matching” took place in order to update the association)).
Regarding claim 15: Vandivere teaches A system comprising:
a memory component; and a processing device coupled to the memory component, the processing device to perform operations comprising (Vandivere, [21:65-67]-[22:1-44], where non-transitory tangible computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions for implementing the disclosed computing system may be utilized, and that the computing system 1200 includes main memory including computer executable instructions that, when run on processor 1204, implement the disclosed methods):
identifying, within a contract change document to a main contract, a change instruction for a main contract by performing natural language processing on the contract change document (Vandivere, [21:11-44], where amendment 1004C is received as a sequential document 1112 (i.e., “contract change document”). The amendment 1004C includes paragraphs 1116 and 1118, such that the amendment 1004C includes the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language:” (i.e., “change introduction”) of paragraph 1116 (i.e., “change content”), in which the combination of the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language:” and the paragraph 1116 correspond to the claimed “change instruction”. See Vandivere, [21:11-44], where the system receives exemplar documents and an amendment 1004C that is received as a sequential document 1112. See also Vandivere, [4:35-38] and [19:18-30], where the received exemplar documents may pertain to an original contract document, and documents may include amendments such as contract documents.
See Vandivere, [21:11-44], where the system may apply machine learning techniques or a combination of machine learning and rule-based logic to identify documents as amendments. See Vandivere, [11:64-67]-[13:1-10], where the system performs natural language processing of legal documents by processing a text file into discrete paragraphs and sentences. See also Vandivere, [7:61-67]-[8:1-13], where the disclosed machine learning systems can include, e.g., Stanford NLP, which provide model generation and training), wherein the change instruction includes a change introduction and a change content wherein the contract change document is a first document and the main contract is a second document that is separate from the first document, wherein the change instruction is a portion of text in the contract change document, wherein the change introduction is a first portion of the portion of text that specifies an edit to be made and identifies a target segment to be changed within the main contract, and wherein the change content is a second portion of text within the portion of text that describes a change to be made to the target segment in the main contract (Vandivere, [21:11-44], where amendment 1004C is received as a sequential document 1112 (i.e., “contract change document”). The amendment 1004C includes paragraphs 1116 and 1118, such that the amendment 1004C includes the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language:” (i.e., “change introduction”) of paragraph 1116 (i.e., “change content”), in which the combination of the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language:” (i.e., “change introduction”) and the paragraph 1116 (i.e., “change content”) correspond to the claimed “change instruction”. Amendment 1004C is received as a sequential document 1112 (i.e., “contract change document”). The amendment 1004C includes paragraphs 1116 and 1118, such that the amendment 1004C includes the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language:” (i.e., “change introduction”) of paragraph 1116 (i.e., “change content”). Because this results in a change being applied to the contract document, e.g., by updating categories and subcategories (associated with a particular location of the contract document) using text from paragraph 1116 of Amendment 1004C, this implies that the change introduction was identified.
See Vandivere, [21:11-44], where the system receives exemplar documents and an amendment 1004C that is received as a sequential document 1112 (i.e., “wherein the change document is a first document and the main contract is a second document that is separate from the first document”). See also Vandivere, [4:35-38] and [19:18-30], where the received exemplar documents may pertain to an original contract document, and documents may include amendments such as contract documents);
identifying the change introduction within the change instruction; identifying, within the change instruction in the contract change document, a change content associated with the change introduction by performing natural language processing on the contract change document using a transformer model trained to identify topic shifts (see Vandivere, [21:11-44], [4:35-38], [19:18-30], [0060-0064], and [0045] with respect to the limitation “identifying, within a contract change document to a main contract, a change introduction by performing natural language processing on the contract change document” above for further detail. See also Vandivere, [21:11-44], where in response to processing the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language:” of paragraph 1116, the category “royalties on oil and gas” previously associated with previously processed paragraph 1106 is now associated with amended paragraph 1116, and replaces the association of the text of paragraph 1106 to the same category, i.e., “royalties on oil and gas”, resulting in associations now being updated to conform with the text processed in the amendment 1004C (implying that the “change introduction” within the change instruction, i.e., “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language:”, was identified in order to perform the replacement of paragraph 1106, as was the content that was to be amended (i.e., “identifying the change content within the change instruction”), since paragraph 1106 was amended accordingly).
See Vandivere, [5:61-67]-[6:1-6], where extracted text may be fed into a trained machine learning model to identify categories and subcategories, where it associates with particular sections of text. Thus, even if a document does not include particular section titles, spacing key-words, or other identifiers, extracted text may still be associated with an appropriate category. Thus, Vandivere implicitly discloses the claimed “topic shift between the final text portion and a subsequent text portion” (which indicates that there is an end to one document portion corresponding to a particular topic, and the beginning of another subsequent document portion corresponding to another topic), as Vandivere does not rely on particular section titles, etc., to identify particular sections of text for extracting those paragraphs and classifying those sections into categories and subcategories. Recall from Vandivere, [4:35-38] and [19:18-30], where the document may be an amendment to contract documents.
Although Vandivere does not appear to explicitly state that multiple amendments are within the same received document, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Vandivere such that multiple amendments are received within the same (change) document (and thus, obvious to apply Vandivere’s disclosure of classifying a document’s sections/paragraphs into certain categories and subcategories), with the motivation of enabling users to upload multiple amendments using a single document, which may be more convenient for the user (e.g., instead of uploading each separate amendment one-by-one into the system));
determining an editing intent associated with the change introduction (Vandivere, [21:11-64], where received document 1112 is identified as an amendment by the conflict check module using a rule-based logic and/or machine learning, even when there is no explicit identification that the document being processed is an amending document. See Vandivere, [22:45-62], where the system can identify amendments, addendum, and other later added or rewritten material relative to some original document or set of original documents, in which amendments may alter or eliminate original provisions, and entirely new provisions may first appear in an amendment (implying an editing intent was determined in order to alter the document in accordance with the received amendment document));
parsing the main contract into a plurality of contract elements (Vandivere, [11:64-67]-[13:1-10], where the system performs natural language processing of legal documents, such as those for the oil and gas industry, by processing a text file into discrete paragraphs and sentences, generate and associate category labels and subcategory labels to each other by outputting a data object 412B that contains the category labels and subcategory labels. The category and subcategory labels of the data object 412B are associated with locations within an image of the received oil and gas document 402 from which the text of the categories and subcategories was extracted);
identifying, using the change introduction, a target element from the plurality of contract elements to be changed, wherein the target element is identified by matching content in the change instruction to a title of the target element … (Vandivere, [18:46-64], where system 1000 may identify portions of an amendment as the same category and/or subcategory as portions of the main body of a respective document (i.e., “main contract”). See Vandivere, [19:18-30], where, e.g., “royalties on oil and gas” may be identified in the original contract document and repeated in a third amending document, which causes a value associated with “royalties on oil and gas” to increment. See also Vandivere, [21:11-44], where amendment 1004C includes paragraphs 1116 and 1118, in which 1118 replaces the text of previously processed paragraph 1106, as a response to processing the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language” (i.e., “identifying, within the change introduction, a target element in the main contract to be changed”), and replaces the association of the text of paragraph 1106 to the same category (i.e., “royalties on oil and gas”) (i.e., “target element in the main contract to be changed”), resulting in the association being updated to conform with the text processed in the amendment 1004C (i.e., “wherein the target element is identified by matching content in the change instruction to a title of the target element”));
generating a unified contract view that depicts the main contract including the target element modified according to the change introduction and the change content and does not include any portion of content from the change introduction (Vandivere, [22:45-62], where the system can identify amendments, addendum, and other later added or rewritten material relative to some original document or set of original documents, in which amendments may alter or eliminate original provisions, and entirely new provisions may first appear in an amendment (implying that the target provisions (i.e., “target element”) were modified in accordance with the received amendment document that was associated with an editing intent, e.g., altering, eliminating, or adding new provisions).
See Vandivere, [20:24-35], where when repeated categories and subcategories are associated with conflicting language, the text from less recent document (e.g., the original document) is disassociated from the category or subcategory, and the association of the text of the most recent document and the category or subcategory is maintained. The updated categories and/or subcategory are then provided to document mark-up 414A (operation 908). See Vandivere, [14:64-65]-[15:1-11], where the document mark-up module 414A receives the data object 412B and generates a data object to be sent to the display 450 that contains, e.g., items and mappings of the sentence text strings to an image of the Example Document Text so that an interface may be provided to a user in the vein of, e.g., FIG. 6. See also Vandivere, [22:63-67]-[23:1-4], where the system may chronologically order an original contract and later amendments as well as correctly update identified categories and subcategories to ensure that the list of categories and subcategories provided to the user are not out of date and are linked to the correct text location within the document image.
See Vandivere, [21:11-44], where the header element 1114 describing a respective document as an amendment is not included within the contract document (only, e.g., paragraph 1116 of the change/amendment document) (i.e., “does not include any portion of content from the change instruction”)); and
causing the unified contract view to be output for display (Vandivere, [FIGs. 5-6] and [15:11-67]-[16:1-48], where a contract document is displayed to the user with the left-hand side corresponding to categories and subcategories of the contract document and the right-hand side displaying the document. Recall from Vandivere, [14:64-65]-[15:1-11], [20:24-35], and [22:63-67]-[23:1-4], above, where categories and subcategories provided to the user are updated and provided to the user for display, which ensures that the categories and subcategories are not out of date (i.e., “unified contract view”) and are linked to the correct text location within the document image).
Although Vandivere does not appear to explicitly state that the change introduction (i.e., “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language”) and change content (i.e., paragraph 1116 of Amendment 1004C) are identified via natural language processing, Vandivere discloses that (1) natural language processing is applied to documents (Vandivere, [11:64-67]-[13:1-10]), (2) documents may include amendments (Vandivere, [21:11-44]), and (3) that the provision identified in the amendment is ultimately applied to the main document (Vandivere, [21:11-44], where the relevant categories and subcategories are updated with the paragraph 1116 of Amendment 1004C).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been suggested by Vandivere’s disclosure to identify the change introduction (“Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language”) and change content (paragraph 1116 of Amendment 1004C) by using natural language processing with the motivation of being able to more accurately interpret a wider range of human-readable language and forms (e.g., as opposed to relying on simply keyword search or solely on location search such as in a programmatic fashion) and thus better perform automated document processing functions for a wide range of document/document amendment formats.
Vandivere does not appear to explicitly teach generating, for contract elements within the main contract, a hierarchy of contract elements according to a semantic structure of the main contract; building a title list for the contract elements within the main contract by collating a title associated with a contract element and a second title associated with a second contract element that is a parent node to the contract element within the hierarchy of contract elements; [and wherein the target element is] in the title list.
Wang teaches generating, for contract elements within the main contract, a hierarchy of contract elements according to a semantic structure of the main contract (Wang, [0054], where each document page 310 includes text content 320, and since textual content often includes a textual hierarchy, the words, phrases, sentences, and/or paragraphs of the electronic document 300 can be further divided into logical sub-parts, which in turn may be further divided into logical sub-sub-parts, and so on. The textual hierarchy can be identified from selected indicia or other information included within the electronic document 300, such as section headings 330, section numberings 340, and/or format changes provided at a beginning region of each text section. See Wang, [0055], where if a textual hierarchy exists for the electronic document, the system may generate the associated segment hierarchy, and can associate each relevant document segment 390 with a hierarchical level.
See also Wang, [0067], where the system segments the text content 320 of the electronic document 300 which includes dividing the electronic document 300 into document segments which corresponding with the logical parts (or sections), such as words, phrases, sentences, and/or paragraphs. To divide the electronic document 300 into document segments 390, a segmentation classifier is applied to the electronic document 300, where the segmentation classifier may include text-based features and/or semantic features.
See Wang, [0048], where the incoming document 100 may include contracts);
building a title list for the contract elements within the main contract by collating a title associated with a contract element and a second title associated with a second contract element that is a parent node to the contract element within the hierarchy of contract elements (Wang, [0072], where the paragraphs 380 that form the document segments 390 are associated with section heading 330 (i.e., “collating a title associated with [an element]”) and section numberings 340, where the document processing method initially identifies the section heading 330 and associates the section heading 330 with the top level of the segment hierarchy. See also Wang, [0075] and [0077], where section heading 330 (i.e., “second title associated with a second element that is a parent node to the target element within the hierarchy of elements”) and section subheadings 332 (i.e., “title associated with the target element”) are identified.
See also Wang, [0080], where the system divides the text content 320 of the selected page 310 into document segments 390, identify blocks of text content 320, and if appropriate, creating a segment hierarchy among the document segments 390. The text content 320 of the selected page 310 is grouped into the section heading 440 (i.e., “parent node to the target element within the hierarchy of elements”) and section sub-headings 450 (i.e., “target element”). Recall from Wang, [0048], where the incoming document 100 may include contracts; see also Wang, [0076], where the page type may have been identified as “contract”); [and]
[wherein the target element is] in the title list (Wang, [0072-0074], where the document processing method 200 initially identifies the section heading 330 and associates the section heading 330 with the top level of the segment hierarchy, and determines that section numbering 340D corresponds with section heading 330. Segments 390A, 390B, 390C, etc., corresponding with the section numberings, and thus are associated with that level of the hierarchy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Vandivere and Wang (hereinafter “Vandivere as modified”) with the motivation of analyzing segments in order to contextualize documents and their content, thereby reducing the complexity of the comparison process for different versions of the same document or across different documents (see, e.g., Wang, [0088-0089], and [0196]), in addition to aiding the reviewer in reviewing a document (see, e.g., Wang, [0195]), by highlighting the differences and bringing such differences to the attention of the reviewer.
Regarding claim 17: Claim 17 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 11, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19: Claim 19 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 12, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20: Claim 20 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandivere et al. (“Vandivere”) (US 11,226,720 B1), in view of Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 2013/0021344 A1), in further view of Kaza et al. (“Kaza”) (US 2022/0035990 A1).
Regarding claim 2: Vandivere as modified teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the target element is associated with a part type, content, and a bounding box indicating a location for the target element within the main contract, and wherein the part type for the target element matches an expected part type identified in the change instruction (Vandivere, [0037] and [0039], where the system receives a document and extracts text from the file. The extracted text may be associated or otherwise linked with the particular location in the document from which it was found or extracted. After identifying categories which may further include subcategories (i.e., “the target element is associated with a part type”), which are associated with particular sections of the text (i.e., “[the target element is associated with] content”), e.g., the text of paragraph 3(a)(i) of the Example Document Text may cause the machine learning models to identify a “royalty on oil” provision subcategory (see, e.g., Vandivere, [0049] and [0073]).
See Vandivere, [0106], where amendment 1004C includes paragraphs 1116 and 1118, in which 1118 replaces the text of previously processed paragraph 1106, as a response to processing the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language” (i.e., “Provision 3(a)(i) corresponding to the claimed “section title”), and replaces the association of the text of paragraph 1106 to the same category, i.e., “royalties on oil and gas” (i.e., “the part type for the target element matches an expected part type identified in the change instruction”) (the association implying that a “matching” took place in order to update the association)).
Vandivere does not appear to explicitly teach [wherein the target element is associated with] a bounding box indicating a location for the target element within the main contract.
Kaza teaches [wherein the target element is associated with] a bounding box indicating a location for the target element within the main contract (Kaza, [0032], where a bounding box may be generated that is associated with location coordinates corresponding to the portion of the document that includes the identified field, where the location coordinates may include a starting coordinate and an ending coordinate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Vandivere as modified and Kaza. Vandivere discloses one or more anchors may be identified via visible and/or hidden tags such as a category or subcategory, where this location data maps the locations within the document image to the one or more categories or subcategories (Vandivere, [0050]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Vandivere as modified to include Kaza’s bounding boxes with the motivation of identifying field locations for tagging to be more efficient (Kaza, [0031]).
Regarding claim 13: Vandivere as modified teaches The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the target element is associated with a bounding box indicating a location for the target element within the main contract.
Kaza teaches wherein the target element is associated with a bounding box indicating a location for the target element within the main contract (Kaza, [0032], where a bounding box may be generated that is associated with location coordinates corresponding to the portion of the document that includes the identified field, where the location coordinates may include a starting coordinate and an ending coordinate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Vandivere as modified and Kaza (hereinafter “Vandivere as modified and by Kaza”). Vandivere discloses one or more anchors may be identified via visible and/or hidden tags such as a category or subcategory, where this location data maps the locations within the document image to the one or more categories or subcategories (Vandivere, [9:46-55]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Vandivere to include Kaza’s bounding boxes with the motivation of identifying field locations for tagging to be more efficient (Kaza, [0031]).
Regarding claim 14: Vandivere as modified and by Kaza teaches The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the unified contract view comprises the main contract with the content of the target element edited and displayed at the location instead of original content associated with the target element (Vandivere, [FIGs. 5-6] and [15:11-67]-[16:1-48], where a contract document is displayed to the user with the left-hand side corresponding to categories and subcategories of the contract document and the right-hand side displaying the document.
See also Vandivere, [20:24-35], where when repeated categories and subcategories are associated with conflicting language, the text from less recent document (e.g., the original document) is disassociated from the category or subcategory, and the association of the text of the most recent document and the category or subcategory is maintained. The updated categories and/or subcategory are then provided to document mark-up 414A (operation 908). See Vandivere, [14:64-65]-[15:1-11], where the document mark-up module 414A receives the data object 412B and generates a data object to be sent to the display 450 that contains, e.g., items and mappings of the sentence text strings to an image of the Example Document Text so that an interface may be provided to a user in the vein of, e.g., FIG. 6.
Recall from Vandivere, [22:63-67]-[23:1-4], above, where the system may chronologically order an original contract and later amendments as well as correctly update identified categories and subcategories, which ensures that the list of categories and subcategories provided to the user are not out of date (i.e., “unified contract view”) and are linked to the correct text location within the document image. Recall also Vandivere, [22:45-62], where the system can identify amendments, addendum, and other later added or rewritten material relative to some original document or set of original documents, in which amendments may alter or eliminate original provisions, and entirely new provisions may first appear in an amendment (implying that the target provisions (i.e., “target element”) were modified in accordance with the received amendment document that was associated with an editing intent, e.g., altering, eliminating, or adding new provisions)).
Claims 7-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandivere et al. (“Vandivere”) (US 11,226,720 B1), in view of Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 2013/0021344 A1), in further view of Vagell et al. (“Vagell”) (US 2015/0113390 A1).
Regarding claim 7: Vandivere as modified teaches The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises receiving an interaction with the unified contract view and, in response, causing the change instruction to be output for display.
Vagell teaches receiving an interaction with the unified contract view and, in response, causing the change instruction to be output for display (Vagell, [0052] and [FIG. 4], where a metadata region 224 is associated with a suggested edit 1254, where the metadata region 224 includes data indicative of the edit type corresponding to the suggested edit 1254, i.e., an addition, and an indication of the object to be added, i.e., “During development of a document,” (i.e., the edit type and indication of the object corresponding to the claimed “change instruction”). See Vagell, [0065-0066], where a display box 654 allows the editor 108 to selectively view a subset of all the suggested edits related to the document 106 in a markup view of the document, e.g., before selecting to preview an editor’s action on any of the suggested edits, the editor 108 may first select to display only the suggested edits corresponding to a particular category (i.e., “receiving an interaction with the unified view”).
See also Vandivere, [15:64-67]-[16:1-9], where the interface 600 may allow navigation of a document; see also Vandivere, [4:35-38] and [19:18-30], where the received exemplar documents may pertain to an original contract document, and documents may include amendments such as contract documents).
Although Vagell does not appear to explicitly state that the editor interface, e.g., Vagell’s [FIG. 4], is displayed in response to the editor’s interaction with viewing a subset of the edits, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Vagell such that, e.g., the suggested edit seen in [FIG. 4] is displayed in response to the user’s selection of which suggested edits to review, with the motivation of allowing users to focus their attention on certain edits, e.g., view the details of the suggested edits if they wish, selectively accept/reject certain suggested edits, respond to certain suggested edits, etc., which allow for changes to be made to the document efficiently (Vagell, [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Vandivere as modified and Vagell with the motivation of providing greater details of modifications to users in order to aid them in better identifying changes being made to a document.
Regarding claim 8: Vandivere as modified teaches The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises receiving a user interaction with a section-change interface and, in response to the user interaction, updating a characteristic of the target element.
Vagell teaches receiving a user interaction with a section-change interface and, in response to the user interaction, updating a characteristic of the target element (Vagell, [0064-0068] and [FIG. 12], where the editor interface 110 includes a display box 654 with a list of display options, and decision options (i.e., rejection options 650 and accept options 652) for the editor 108 (i.e., “section-change interface”). The display box 654 allows the editor 108 to selectively view a subset of all the suggested edits related to the document 106 in a markup view of the document. When the editor 108 selects and deselects the display options, the view of the display of the document may be updated in real time, allowing the editor 108 to accept/reject edits corresponding to one or more edit types, and allow changes to be made to the document 106 efficiently. See also Vandivere, [4:35-38] and [19:18-30], where the received exemplar documents may pertain to an original contract document, and documents may include amendments such as contract documents).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Vandivere as modified and Vagell with the motivation of allowing an editor to selectively view a subset of all suggested edits (i.e., without overwhelming the attention of the editor) thereby allowing the editor 108 to efficiently accept/reject edits, and allow changes to be made to the document 106 efficiently (Vagell, [0068]).
Regarding claim 16: Vandivere as modified teaches The system of claim 15, wherein the identifying the change introduction comprises identifying an action word within the change introduction … (Vandivere, [21:11-44], where in response to processing the language “Provision 3(a)(i) is hereby replaced with the following language:” of paragraph 1116, the category “royalties on oil and gas” previously associated with previously processed paragraph 1106 is now associated with amended paragraph 1116, and replaces the association of the text of paragraph 1106 to the same category, i.e., “royalties on oil and gas”, resulting in associations now being updated to conform with the text processed in the amendment 1004C (implying that the word “replace” was an action word identified from the amendment document)) … .
Vandivere as modified does not appear to explicitly teach [wherein the action word is identified] from a plurality of designated action words.
Vagell teaches [wherein the action word is identified] from a plurality of designated action words (Vagell, [0029] and [FIG. 3], where the change may be a suggested edit to the document 106, such as an insertion, deletion, replacement, move, format change, or any other suitable change in a document. Changes of different types, such as insertions, deletions, replacements, moves, format changes, comments, etc., may be saved differently in the list of suggestions 105, e.g., different lists may be used to store changes of different types, or alternatively, changes of different types may be stored together as entries in one list, with each entry having a label indicative of the change type).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Vandivere as modified and Vagell with the motivation of speeding up identification of the type of change to be made to the document (i.e., instead of the system having to learn new words all the time to map to a particular function/action, the system can store and subsequently retrieve/map the identified words to the appropriate function/action which is not only faster, as stated previously, but also lends itself to greater accuracy).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandivere et al. (“Vandivere”) (US 11,226,720 B1), in view of Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 2013/0021344 A1), in further view of Zheng et al. (“Zheng”) (US 2017/0351655 A1).
Regarding claim 10: Vandivere as modified teaches The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises adjusting the hierarchy of contract elements in response to a user input provided through a section editing interface.
Zheng teaches adjusting the hierarchy of contract elements in response to a user input provided through a section editing interface (Zheng, [0065], where a document tree may be generated, e.g., from a template, in which the document tree generation includes identifying content from the document. See Zheng, [0070], where the document tree may be altered in response to received input, e.g., based on a current state of the application interface, the template specification. See also Zheng, [0088], where in a document interface 700, a document may include a first ‘Section’ object 702, which may include a first ‘Description’ object 704, a second ‘Description’ object 706, and a third ‘Description’ object 708. The productivity application may receive input indicating a deletion of the content associated with the third ‘Description’ object 708, and update the document tree to omit the third ‘Description’ object 708. See also Vandivere, [4:35-38] and [19:18-30], where the received exemplar documents may pertain to an original contract document, and documents may include amendments such as contract documents).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Vandivere as modified and Zheng with the motivation of ensuring that the document hierarchy is updated accordingly, e.g., not fixed to the original document but rather updates as the document’s contents/structure changes as well, which facilitates comparing differences between different versions of the same document.
Conclusion
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 IRENE BAKER whose telephone number is (408)918-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5PM PT.
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, NEVEEN ABEL-JALIL can be reached at (571)270-0474. 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.
/IRENE BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152
2 January 2026