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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 2/10/2026. Claims 1-9 and, 16-20 are currently pending and claims 10-15 are withdrawn. Claims 1 and 16 are the independent claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 2/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It recites “…generating editable email components from email fragments of an email file utilizing an ASP model by…” and as such uses the acronym “ASP” without first defining “ASP” to mean “Answer Set Programming”. For clarity, it should recite “…generating editable email components from email fragments of an email file utilizing an Answer Set Programming (ASP) model by…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1, it recites “A method comprising: generating editable email components from email fragments of an email file utilizing an Answer Set Programming (ASP) model by: extracting facts for the ASP model from the email file; determining rows or columns defining cells of the email file utilizing ASP hard constraints defined by a first set of ASP atoms corresponding to the facts; and determining editable email component classes for the email fragments utilizing ASP soft constraints defined by ASP classification weights and a second set of ASP atoms corresponding to the facts.”
The limitations “generating editable email components from email fragments of an email file …by:”, “extracting facts for the ASP model from the email file”, “determining rows or columns defining cells of the email file utilizing ASP hard constraints defined by a first set of ASP atoms corresponding to the facts”, and “determining editable email component classes for the email fragments utilizing ASP soft constraints defined by ASP classification weights and a second set of ASP atoms corresponding to the facts”, as drafted, is a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a human may mentally/with pen and paper, etc. generate/decide/judge/determine/identify/etc. components/email components from an email file, may mentally/with pen and paper/etc. observe/determine/judge/extract/etc. facts, may mentally/with pen and paper/etc. determine/decide/judge/etc. rows/columns defining cells, and may mentally/with pen and paper/etc. determine/judge/decide/etc. classes/editable email component classes. Therefore, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “utilizing an Answer Set Programming (ASP) model”, which, recites that high level/generic computer/computer components are used in implementing/performing the abstract idea/mental process, and as such amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g), etc..
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, which does not provide an inventive concept and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
As per claim 2, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein extracting the facts for the ASP model from the email file further comprises at least one of: determining the facts based on an embedded style sheet of the email file, determining fragment width, height, or position from a browser rendering of the email file, or extracting colors or fonts from the email file utilizing a computer vision library” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judging/determining/etc., and as such does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 2 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 3, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the email file is generated utilizing a first email editing application and further comprising generating the editable email components from the email file for editing by a second email editing application by: identifying incompatible labels for the email fragments corresponding to the first email editing application from the email file; upon determining the editable email component classes, generating labels for the email fragments compatible with the second email editing application; and replacing the incompatible labels with labels compatible with the second email editing application to generate the editable email components”. The additional elements/limitations “identifying incompatible labels for the email fragments corresponding to the first email editing application from the email file” and “generating labels for the email fragments compatible with the second email editing application”, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/identifying labels/determining labels/judging/determining classes/deciding labels/generating labels/etc., which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. The additional elements “wherein the email file is generated…and further comprising generating the editable email components from the email file for editing…by” and “replacing the incompatible labels with labels compatible with the second email editing application to generate the editable email components” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activities of generating/editing/updating/modifying/etc. data/information/email file/email file components/etc. and updating/modifying/replacing/etc. data/information/labels/etc., which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). And the additional elements/limitations “a first email editing application” and “by a second email editing application” recites that high level/generic computer/computer components are used in implementing/performing the abstract idea/mental process, and as such amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such, the additional elements of claim 3 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore claim 3 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 4, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein determining the rows or columns defining the cells of the email file utilizing the ASP hard constraints comprises executing a row detection task of the ASP model by: determining a set of row partition results utilizing the ASP hard constraints; determining numbers of row partitions in the set of row partition results utilizing a head ASP atom; and selecting rows defining the cells of the email file utilizing an ASP objective function based on the head ASP atom” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judging/determining/selecting/etc., and as such does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 4 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 5, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein determining the set of row partition results utilizing the ASP hard constraints comprises determining the set of row partition results by utilizing the ASP model to search for possible row partitions subject to the ASP hard constraints, wherein the ASP hard constraints comprise at least one of. a number of rows hard constraint, an email element overlap hard constraint, or an element cross-row duplication hard constraint” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judging/determining/etc., and as such does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 5 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 6, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein determining editable email component classes utilizing the ASP soft constraints comprises executing an element classification task of the ASP model by, for a first ASP soft constraint, determining a first weight for an editable email component class of an email fragment of the email file utilizing a first bodiless rule defined by a first ASP atom corresponding to a first email component feature and a first ASP classification weight” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judging/determining/etc., and as such does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 6 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 7, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein executing the element classification task of the ASP model further comprises for a second ASP soft constraint, determining a second weight for the editable email component class of the email fragment of the email file utilizing a second bodiless rule defined by a second ASP atom corresponding to a second email component feature and a second ASP classification weight” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judging/determining/etc., and as such does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 7 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 8, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein executing the element classification task of the ASP model further comprises selecting the editable email component class for the email fragment utilizing an ASP objective function based on the first weight and the second weight” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judging/selecting/etc., and as such does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 8 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 9, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…further comprising providing the editable email components, for display, via an email editing user interface of a second email editing application, the email editing user interface comprising one or more cell elements based on the cells and one or more editing options based on the editable email component classes” which, with broadest reasonable interpretation, does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activities of displaying data/information/email components/user interface/etc., which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, claim 9 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 10, it recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium having similar limitations as the method of claim 1, and therefore recites a similar abstract idea and similar deficiencies as claim 1. Claim 10 recites the further additional elements/limitations “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions which, when executed by at least one processing device, cause the at least one processing device to perform operations comprising” which, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recite that high level/generic computer/computer components/non0transitory computer readable medium/at least one processing device/etc. are used to implement/perform the abstract idea/mental process, and as such amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application. Accordingly, the additional elements/limitations of claim 16 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore claim 16 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 17, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…converting the email fragments to editable email components within a second email editing application based on the editable email component classes” which, with broadest reasonable interpretation, does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activities of updating/modifying/converting/etc. data/information/email fragments/etc., which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the additional elements/limitations of claim 17 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 16, and therefore claim 17 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 16, above.
As per claims 18 and 19-20, they recite non-transitory computer-readable mediums having similar limitations as the methods of claim 4 and 7-8, respectively, and are therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claims 4 and 7-8, respectively, above.
Allowable Subject Matter Over Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record (Nelson et al. US Patent 8,832,205 B2, Marchsreiter US Patent 10,657,313 B2, Fedyak US Patent 11,323,543 B2, Desai US Patent 7,069,497 B1, and Nair et al. US Patent 8,527,867 B2 ) teaches that email file/virtual documents/electronic documents/pages/etc. may be analyzed/parsed/etc. and components/fragments/facts/etc. of the email/document/etc. may be extracted/determined/identified/etc.; that rows/columns/cells/tables/etc. corresponding to the components/fragments/facts/etc. may be determined/identified/etc., that the components/fragments/etc. of the document/email/etc. may be classified/determined as editable/modifiable/etc., and that the components may be inserted into/used to create document/email/etc. and be visually presented for editing/modification in an editor component in a determined structure/format/etc..
However, the prior art of record fails to render an obviousness of generating editable email components from email fragments of an email file, when the email file is utilizing an Answer Set Programming (ASP) model, and the generation of editable email components includes extracting facts for the ASP model from the email file, utilizing ASP hard constraints defined by a first set of ASP atoms corresponding to the facts to determining rows or columns defining cells of the email file, and utilizing ASP soft constraints defined by ASP classification weights and a second set of ASP atoms corresponding to the facts to determining editable email component classes for the email fragments, as required by the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Becker et al. US Patent 12,333,240 B2 teaches extracting data from documents including determining tables/cells/etc. of the documents, classifying the tables/cells/etc., and extracting data from the cells/tables/etc..
Park et al. US Patent 11,144,718 B2 teaches that machine learning/natural language processing/models/etc. may use answer sets to parse/extract data/information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS M SLACHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-0653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/DOUGLAS M SLACHTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights