DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to application number 18/219,027 filed on 07/06/2023, in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority of provisional patent application No. 6,336,8434, filed on 07/14/2022. See Double Patenting rejections with child Applications/ Patents 18/814,294 (US-12,300,390-B1), 18/810,153 (US-12,243,653-B1), 18/815,494 (US-12,293,843-B1), 18/810,328 (US-12,249,430-B1) & 18/812,375 (US-12,293,842-B1) as outlined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS(s)) submitted on 04/12/2024, 12/06/2024 & 01/18/2025 have been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 USC §101 as being an abstract idea without significantly more, and under 35 USC §112(b), as being indefinite (and/or omitting essential steps). Due to the significant issues of claim(s) 1-20, this will be the only rejection of these claims. Thus, the claims will not be further examined on substantive grounds. The examiner will not attempt to examine the claims over the prior art for each plausible/potential interpretation. Once applicant has corrected the enablement issues, a prior art rejection may be issued. It should be noted that if an art rejection is issued, it will not be considered a new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “the reliability criteria” in line 8. It should be “the one or more reliability criteria”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “each of one or more reliability criteria” in line 2. It should be “each of the one or more reliability criteria”.
Claim 8 recites “each of one or more reliability criteria” in line 2. It should be “each of the one or more reliability criteria”.
Claim 9 recites “each of one or more reliability criteria” in line 2. It should be “each of the one or more reliability criteria”.
Claim 10 recites “an augmented sequence” in line 5. It should be “an augmented text sequence”.
Claim 11 recites “a natural language processing neural network” in line 2. It should be “the natural language processing neural network”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC §112(b) because:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the collection of structured data records” in lines 7 & 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-18 are rejected for incorporating the error(s) of their respective base claims by dependency.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the text string” in lines 4 & 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the text string” in lines 4 & 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the text strings” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the text strings” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the text string” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the collection of structured data records” in lines 11 & 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the collection of structured data records” in lines 9 & 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
35 USC §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 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III)
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 1. A method performed by one or more computers, the method comprising:
obtaining a set of input text sequences [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic input/UI];
generating a set of structured data records from the set of input text sequences using an extraction neural network [particular technological environment or field of use without telling how it is accomplished], wherein each structured data record defines a structured representation of a corresponding input text sequence with reference to a predefined schema of semantic categories [mental process/step];
filtering the collection of structured data records to identify and remove structured data records that are predicted to be unreliable [mental process/step]; and
processing the collection of structured data records [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] to generate an article that is directed to a selected topic and that aggregates information from across multiple structured data records [mental process/step].
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of generating a set of structured data records from the set of input text sequences, … ; filtering the collection of structured data records to identify and remove structured data records that are predicted to be unreliable; and … to generate an article that is directed to a selected topic and that aggregates information from across multiple structured data records. These limitation, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “processing”, i.e., by computer(s) of base claims 19 and/or 20. That is, other than reciting computer “processing” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the computer “processing” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at [i.e., reading] data collected and forming a simple judgement [i.e., summarizing data by a human using a pen and paper]. The mere nominal recitation of by a controller does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of obtaining a set of input text sequences; using an extraction neural network … ; and processing the collection of structured data records … . The obtaining step(s) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering input data/text for use in the filtering & generating(s) steps), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “using an extraction neural network” step/element also recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use without telling how it is accomplished. The computer “processing” merely describes how to generally and merely automates the filtering & generating(s) steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea and/ or “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose processor, i.e. a computer. The computer(s) / storage(s) system(s) of base claims 19 & 20 is/are recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the filtering & generating(s) steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra- solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the obtaining step(s), using an extraction neural network, and the processing, i.e., computer(s)/ storage(s) steps/elements were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, i.e., set of input text sequences a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
The background recites that the claimed neural network is using a conventional deep neural network, and the Specification does not provide any indication that the extraction neural network is anything other than a conventional autoregressive type of neural network, See ¶112.
The Specification recites that the said computer(s) is/are a general-purpose processor, See ¶374, the using a conventional TensorFlow farmwork to implement the Machine learning models, and does not provide any indication that the prediction model is anything other than a conventional machine learning model, See ¶378.
Accordingly, a conclusion that the obtaining step(s), using an extraction neural network, and the processing, i.e., computer(s)/ storage(s) steps/elements is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent system and/or non-transitory storage media claims 19 & 20, respectively, recite similar limitations performed by the method of claim 1. Therefore, claims 19 & 20 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Dependent claims 2-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounts to mere input and/or output data manipulation. Therefore, dependent claims 2-18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Thus, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Double Patenting
Examiner has conducted a Double Patenting analysis with at least patent Applications 18/814,294 (now published as US-12,300,390-B1), 18/810,153 (now published as US-12,243,653-B1), 18/815,494 (now published as US-12,293,843-B1), 18/810,328 (now published as US-12,249,430-B1) & 18/812,375 (now published as US-12,293,842-B1). Examiner found several Double Patenting issues with claims of this patent and instant application claims as currently presented.
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP §2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. US-12,300,390-B1 (hereinafter ‘390).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-20 of ‘390. This is an actual non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have in fact been patented.
Instant Application
Conflicting Patent ‘390
Comments
A method performed by one or more computers, the method comprising:
A method performed by one or more computers, the method comprising:
See ‘390 Claim 1 preamble.
obtaining a set of input text sequences;
obtaining a collection of structured data records, wherein: each structured data record is generated by processing a corresponding input text sequence using an extraction neural network;
See ‘390 Claim 1 2nd limitation
generating a set of structured data records from the set of input text sequences using an extraction neural network,
wherein each structured data record defines a structured representation of a corresponding input text sequence with reference to a predefined schema of semantic categories;
each structured data record is generated by processing a corresponding input text sequence using an extraction neural network;
each structured data record represents information from the corresponding input text sequence in a format that is structured with reference to a predefined schema of semantic categories; and
each structured data record comprises, for each semantic
category in the schema, a respective text string that expresses information from the corresponding input text string that is relevant to the semantic category;
See ‘390 Claim 1, 3rd, 4th and 5th limitation
filtering the collection of structured data records to identify and remove structured data records that are predicted to be unreliable; and
filtering the collection of structured data records by applying a set of selection criteria to classify a proper subset of the collection of structured data records as being relevant to the topic,
See ‘390 Claim 1, 8th limitation
processing the collection of structured data records to generate an article that is directed to a selected topic and that aggregates information from across multiple structured data records.
processing only the group of structured data records that are classified as being relevant to the topic, using a generative model, to generate the article directed to the
topic.
See ‘390 Claim 1, last limitation
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. US-12,243,653-B1 (hereinafter ‘653).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-20 of ‘653. This is an actual non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. US-12,293,843-B1 (hereinafter ‘843).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-20 of ‘843. This is an actual non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. US-12,249,430-B1 (hereinafter ‘430).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-20 of ‘430. This is an actual non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. US-12,293,842-B1 (hereinafter ‘842).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-20 of ‘842. This is an actual non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/Tarek Elarabi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661