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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 November 2025 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claims are directed to an improvement in analyzing, processing, and preparing for a legal proceeding on pages 18-20 of the Remarks. Applicant argues the claims address a technical challenge of manual review of lengthy transcripts, but this is a business problem and not a technical problem because a client not wanting to pay for additional attorneys to review depositions can be solved with additional funds and is not technical in nature. Automation of a manual process by a computer has been shown to not be sufficient of an improvement in computer-functionality, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). Applicant argues on pages 20-21 that the claims are directed to an improvement in computer operation or efficiency. Automation of a manual process by a computer has been shown to not be sufficient of an improvement in computer-functionality, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). Applicant argues on page 21 that the claims provide a particular solution to the problem of analyzing, processing, and preparing for a legal proceeding, specifically that the claim limitations improve computer performance in legal data processing and retrieval. The Examiner disagrees that the computer performance is being improved as previously stated and the claims are not similar in scope to the facts of McRo that recited a specific manner to perform a previously exclusively manual process of facial animation.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 22-26, filed 14 November 2025, with respect to the 102 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection of 14 May 2025 has been withdrawn. The prior art of record fails to teach or disclose at least “present for selection, via user interface of an output device, the assigned participant names, participant characteristics, and content characteristics and generate an arrangement based on the selection of at least one of the assigned participant names, participant characteristics, and/or content characteristics” as well as “assigning to each segment: a participant name … and at least one content characteristic.”
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 1-24, 26-33, and 35-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a “method”.
Claim 1 is directed to the concept of “summarizing a transcript” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… legal interactions (analyzing a deposition is traditionally a legal activity) and managing personal behavior (filtering content is similar to filtering or sorting the content of a transcript)” a mental process (claims recited a mental process when they contain limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are all part of analyzing a deposition) in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Claim 1 recites receiving data associated with a legal proceeding, wherein the data includes at least one transcript that reflects words spoken by participants during the course of the legal proceeding; separating the data into a plurality of segments that each comprise data associated with at least one of: a question asked during the legal proceeding; an answer given in response to the question asked during the legal proceeding; an objection raised during the legal proceeding; and an argument raised during the legal proceeding; analyzing the plurality of segments, comprising: assigning to each segment a participant name for each participant associated with the segment; at least one participant characteristic of each participant associated with the segment; and at least one content characteristic based on the content associated with the segment; presenting for selection the assigned participant names, participant characteristics, and content characteristics and generating an arrangement based on the selection of at least one of the assigned participant names, participant characteristics and/or content characteristics. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claim such as a processor, an output device, a segmentation engine, a user interface, a computing device represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) the acts of summarizing a transcript.
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of summarizing a transcript using computer technology (e.g. a user interface, a processor). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 2-13, 15-24, 26-27, 29-33, and 35-41 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Srinivasarghavan US 2021/0073302.
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 DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692