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
Status of the Claims
Claims 2-9, 11- 19, and 22-26 are pending.
The rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained
Response to Applicant Remarks
Applicant’s well-articulated remarks have been considered but are unpersuasive for the reasons below.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that Claim 2 is allowable in light of the citation of allowable matter in claim 25. (Applicant’s 8/11/26 remarks, pp.2-3, “The Office Action's finding that claim 25 is eligible under Core Wireless therefore implicitly relies on the claim 2 elements that supply the information and structure on which the claim 25 GUI operates. The base claim 2 produces the time series that the claim 25 interface displays. The base claim 2 produces the structured dictionary representations that allow the claim 25 auditing pane to retrieve and display the source table. The base claim 2 generates the matched values that the claim 25 dropdown presents. The integrated GUI improvement that the Office Action recognizes as eligible cannot be separated from the technical infrastructure that produces what the GUI displays. If the integrated combination is eligible, the claim 2 elements within that combination cannot fairly be characterized at a level of generality that treats them as a generic computer environment.“) The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As claimed, claim 2 only recites processing of various data elements and an that may be displayed on a GUI. Claim 2 does not recite in any detail the nature or interaction of the GUI. Core Wireless held that the claims at issue could be eligible, because the claims were "directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices." (Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)) Claim 2 may recite certain types of data but not any particular way in which they are presented. Accordingly, claim 25, which presents the GUI interaction in detail may be allowable whereas claim 2 is not.
Applicant also argues that under step 2B, the examiner has not evidentiary burden established by the Berkheimer v. HP Inc. decision. (Applicant’s 8/11/26 remarks, p.4, “The Alice citation does not satisfy the court-decision category for the elements actually
recited. Alice addresses communications controllers and data storage units at a generic level. The
claims here recite a parsing engine that tokenizes at least one of headers, row identifiers, or cell
values from extracted tables; a database structured for indexing and retrieving table versions; a
row- and column-based matching algorithm applied to dictionaries stored in the database;
conversion of extracted tables into dictionaries by mapping terms to corresponding column values
and standardizing data formats; and automatic update of the time series upon receipt of new
documents containing updated tables. No court decision is cited holding any of these elements
well-understood, routine, and conventional at this level of generality. No publication is cited. No
official notice has been taken with supporting documentation. Applicant has made no such
admission. Moreover, the Office Action's own Step 2A analysis counts the "engine" among the
additional elements ("[b]ut for the cnginc/memory/proccssor/display "), yet its Step 2B analysis
addresses only "a memory/processor/display.. The parsing engine (an additional element by the
Office Action's own accounting) is never addressed at Step 2B.
Under MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), the computer functions the courts have recognized as well-
understood, routine, and conventional are those "claimed in a merely generic manner"; a cited
decision therefore supports a conventionality finding only as to elements comparable to those the
court actually addressed. The Office Action's reliance on Alice's generic language about
communications controllers and data storage units does not carry that weight for the specific
parsing, dictionary-conversion, matching, and automatic-update elements recited in the present
claims.”) The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As Applicant points out, “Under Step 2B, the question is whether the additional elements, alone or in ordered combination, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. A combination that is not disclosed in any of the prior art on record, after the Office has conducted multiple searches, cannot fairly be characterized as well-understood, routine, and conventional.” (Applicant’s 8/11/26 remarks, p.5). The examiner interprets Applicant’s claimed “tokenizes at least one of headers, row identifiers, or cell values from extracted tables; a database structured for indexing and retrieving table versions; a row- and column-based matching algorithm applied to dictionaries stored in the database; conversion of extracted tables into dictionaries by mapping terms to corresponding column values and standardizing data formats; and automatic update of the time series upon receipt of new documents containing updated tables. tokenizes at least one of headers, row identifiers, or cell values from extracted tables; a database structured for indexing and retrieving table versions; a row- and column-based matching algorithm applied to dictionaries stored in the database; conversion of extracted tables into dictionaries by mapping terms to corresponding column values and standardizing data formats; and automatic update of the time series upon receipt of new documents containing updated tables” to be elements of an abstract idea rather than any additional element under the 2B analysis. That is, a human can recognize headers, row identifiers, or cell values from tables in a document; remember those features; and match those remembered features to recognize similar tables in other documents to consolidate the data into a time series. Even if the claimed abstract idea is novel, this is an inquiry distinct from prior art. (See e.g., SAP America vs. Investpic , “We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility… The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations (in the plot of a probability distribution function). No matter how much of an advance … the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the nonabstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.” )
Applicant also argues that the particular claimed steps are eligible, citing similarity to the McRO decision. (Applicant’s 8/11/26 Remarks, p.6). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The court in McRO held that the invention claimed specific rules related to automating 3D animation, a technological improvement. (McRO, “Here, the structure of the limited rules reflects a specific implementation not demonstrated as that which "any [animator] engaged in the search for [an automation process] would likely have utilized." Myriad, 133 S.Ct. at 2119-20 (quotation marks omitted). By incorporating the specific features of the rules as claim limitations, claim 1 is limited to a specific process for automatically animating characters using particular information and techniques and does not preempt approaches that use rules of a different structure or different techniques. See Morse, 56 U.S. at 113. When looked at as a whole, claim 1 is directed to a patentable, technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques. The claim uses the limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2358 (citing Diehr, 450 U.S. at 177, 101 S.Ct. 1048). Claim 1 of the '576 patent, therefore, is not directed to an abstract idea.”) In Applicant’s case, the examiner considers the consolidation of data (e.g. financial statement, Applicant’s fig.1) to rise to the level of a similar improvement to technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-9, 11- 19, and 22-24,26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Regarding independent claims 2,12 the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to comparing financial documents which is a mental process. Other than reciting a engine/memory/processor/display nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed mentally. But for the engine/memory/processor/display the limitations on receive documents, identify and extract tables, covert table into dictionary, store dictionary, select table, retrieve dictionary, identify previous version of table in second document with matching algorithm, generate and update time series, automatically update time series when new documents received is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed by mentally but for the recitation of generic computer elements. If claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process group.
The claims do 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 element of a memory/processor/display amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Collecting, analyzing and displaying information, and receiving and transmitting over a network are conventional in the computing arts. (MPEP 2106.05h; See also Alice v. CLS, “. Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”).] The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the comparing steps. The subject matter of claims 3/13 (extract previous table), 4/14 (match based on name), 5/15 (match based on terms), 6/16 (match based on headers), 7/17 (time series output), 8/18 (alert new previous table), 9/19 (identify non-matching row), 11 (show new table), 22 (mapping terms to columns using rules) , 23 (identify next best matches and flagging non-matching rows and tables), 24 (compare data based on threshold and calculated score), 26 ( phases of matching algorithm) appear to add additional steps to the abstract idea, implemented by generic computers. To the extent that some claims recite statistical techniques (e.g. claims 24, 26), these may also fall into the category of patent ineligible mathematical concepts. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The examiner interprets the matter of claim 25 to be a patent eligible technological improvement to a graphical user interface.
Conclusion
Relevant art not relied on but made of record include
Anderson, “Answer Log”, 2/2016, https://www.quora.com/Automation-Is-there-a-method-to-consolidate-data-from-multiple-files-word-and-excel-into-a-single-report-Please-read-the-description/answer/Christina-Anderson-19/log, describing importing and consolidating data from multiple word and excel documents.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
