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 the Examiner evaluates the claims at an impermissible high level of generality. (Applicant’s 2/27/26 remarks, p.2, “The Examiner's conclusion that a human could manually compile a listing of disparate relevant documents fundamentally mischaracterizes what the claims require. The claims do not recite manually reviewing documents and noting which ones are related. The claims recite maintaining indexed dictionary structures with preserved term-to-column relationships, applying algorithmic matching across varying document formats, and automatically updating temporal sequences when new data arrives. The distance between these two characterizations illustrates the problem with evaluating claims at an impermissibly high level of generality.”) The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes that Applicant’s Fig.1 describes a possible use case of the invention. That is, one financial document may have a table Company ABC Q1 financial data and a second financial document may have a table Company ABC Q2 financial data. These tables have similar data points regarding sales, margin, expenses. A human analyst reading quarterly financial reports is capable of mentally identifying the quarterly sales table via a variety of mental algorithms. The tables have similar titles or data headings for example. Although applicant recites an indexed dictionary, the examiner respectfully suggests that a human analyst having read financial tables would internally store in their memory terminology, synonyms and past data that would allow them to recognize the progression and data in subsequent tables, although in a human this is not explicitly referred to as a “data dictionary”. Indeed publicly traded companies routinely publish reports for human manual consumption, such that investors may gauge financial performance or trends over time.
Applicant also argues that the claimed invention is not an abstract idea. (Applicant’s 2/26/27 remarks, p.3, “The operations claimed here cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Consider the scale and volume of data involved. The system must maintain relationships between multiple tables across multiple document versions, with each table potentially containing numerous rows and columns. For each table, the system preserves not just data values but also the number of columns, headers, source document locations, and relationships between data and column headers indicating from which column each piece of data originated.”; “The precision and algorithmic nature of the matching process further demonstrates operations beyond human mental capacity. The matching algorithm must compare tables across documents where the formats may vary. The algorithm applies multi-phase matching that includes identifying candidate tables based on structural metadata and term frequency analysis, aligning rows using statistical similarity metrics including contextual similarity of terms and values, and iteratively refining alignments to resolve discrepancies including mismatched or missing rows.”). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that they perform a task undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved. The courts have consistently held, in the context of computer-assisted methods, that such claims are not made patent eligible under § 101 simply because they speed up human activity. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; DealerTrack, 674 F.3d at 1333. Whether the issue is raised at step one or step two, the increased speed and efficiency resulting from use of computers (with no improved computer techniques) do not themselves create eligibility. See, e.g., Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (rejecting argument that “humans could not mentally engage in the ‘same claimed process’ because they could not perform ‘nanosecond comparisons’ and aggregate ‘result values with huge numbers of polls and members’”) (internal citation omitted); Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding claims abstract where “[t]he only improvements identified in the specification are generic speed and efficiency improvements inherent in applying the use of a computer to any task”). The Shaw reference also explicitly discloses that an internal company fraudster may have a particular predilection for manipulating a particular customer account. (Shaw, p.11, “The second point is that each embezzler has a pattern of theft that is somewhat unique but discernible to an experienced fraud auditor… a favorite customer supplier or contractor whose account balance gets manipulated… Fraudulent pattern recognition is the unique skill of a … fraud auditor. Current efforts to design audit software to duplicate that unique skill, by way of artificial intelligence, are the best hope we now have…” ). The examiner does not agree that data normalization renders the invention eligible. That is, transactions records of a customer could appear in many formats (e.g. International Business Machines Corp could be recorded as IBM, I.B.M., IBM Corp, etc). Treating these different variations as the same customer for the purpose of an audit would appear to be common sense. Although it may be onerous for an auditor to review many data points, the examiner does not agree that it is beyond human capability. A complex audit could consist of a team of analysts. A fraud trail could also involve an amount of data that a single human could process. Fundamentally, the audit is a mental process. The examiner respectfully suggests that postulating that the process becomes impractical because the amount of data increases or that a computer can process it faster does not make the underlying process any less of an abstract idea. (See, e.g., Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (rejecting argument that “humans could not mentally engage in the ‘same claimed process’ because they could not perform ‘nanosecond comparisons’ and aggregate ‘result values with huge numbers of polls and members’”)). The examine acknowledges that the claimed matching algorithm recites concepts of explicitly flagging matching/nonmatching rows and calculation similarity scores, which a human auditor likely would not engage in. However, at the level claimed, the examine cannot conclude that the claimed steps are beyond a human mental process. In addition, determining matching using statistical techniques could also be considered a patent ineligible abstract idea relating to mathematical concepts.
Applicant further argues the claimed invention is a patent eligible invention that cannot be performed mentally. (Applicant’s 2/27/26 remarks, p.4, “The automatic update mechanism provides another example of operations that cannot practically be performed mentally. When the system receives a new document, it must automatically extract tables, convert them to dictionaries, compare them against all existing table dictionaries in the database, identify matching previous versions, update the indexed relationships, and regenerate time series data. This coordinated sequence of operations across the entire database structure happens automatically upon document receipt. A human could not perform these operations mentally while maintaining consistency across all affected data structures… claims to specific hardware-based implementations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind do not fall within the mental process grouping. Here, the claims require a database structured for indexing and retrieving table versions with preserved metadata, a parsing engine that tokenizes document elements, and algorithms that perform mathematical matching operations.”) The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Courts have invalidated claims directed to data analysis or result-oriented processing, such as in Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Generic application of known computing techniques remains ineligible, whereas claims that explain how a computer is improved, such as through new data structures or processing techniques, may be eligible. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that claims directed to data collection, analysis, and display using generic computing technology are abstract. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353–54. Although Applicant’s invention recites operations on storage and updating a database, the generic database does not appear to confer patent eligibility, because it does not appear to recite a new data structure or improvement to a database. A person could store and update pertinent keywords gleaned from reading tables in a database or mentally. A person could learn and remember features of similar tables as they change over time by mentally breaking down and identifying elements in the tables.
Applicant further argues that although the invention may involve but do not recite an abstract idea. (Applicant’s 2/27/26 remarks, p.5, “Even if comparing documents could be considered a mental process at some level of abstraction, the claims here do not recite that process. The claims recite a technical system with specific structural and functional limitations. The fact that this system may involve document comparison at a conceptual level does not mean the claims recite document comparison as a judicial exception.”) The examiner respectfully disagrees.
For illustration, Independent claim 1 for example recites these processing steps:
identify and extract tables from the unstructured financial data within each
document using the parsing engine, wherein the parsing engine tokenizes at
least one of headers, row identifiers, or cell values;
However, a human can mentally parse a document and tokenize features of the document. Ie. a human can identify the structure of a table or a title of a table.
convert each extracted table into a dictionary by mapping terms to corresponding
column values and by standardizing data formats, wherein the data in each
extracted table is financial data;
A human can mentally convert and retain row/column headings in a read table. Data can be mentally standardized. The formatting of dates and monetary values often differ between regions.
store the dictionary for each extracted table in a database structured for indexing
and retrieving table versions;
The claim recites a generic data store. However, a human can store information of different table versions in biological memory. Storing information in a generic database is not believed to confer eligibility.
in response to receiving a selection identifying a selected table from within a first
document of the plurality of documents, retrieve the dictionary for the
selected table from the database and apply a row- and column-based
matching algorithm to the dictionaries stored in the database to:
identify multiple respective previous versions of the selected table within
respective documents of the plurality of documents, wherein the table is based on matching at least one of table names, data headers
associated with columns, or data values;
identification of the respective previous versions of the selected
A human upon reading a Quarter 2 financial report for a company could mentally recall or lookup a previously read report for Quarter 1 and match values across reports for analysis. (See e.g., Applicant’s Fig.1) For example, a person may be interested if financials improved between Q1 and Q2. This could be done as far back as desired with prior quarterly data.
generate a time series that includes data values from rows in the selected
table and data values from corresponding rows in the respective
previous versions of the selected table by aligning row values from
the selected table with corresponding rows in the respective
previous versions;
cause the time series, including the selected table and its respective previous
versions, to be displayed on a graphical user interface of a computing device
associated with a user of the system, wherein the time series enables user
selection of the displayed data values; and
A human could mentally or manually collate data from Q1 and Q2 by seeing the two row entries across the two tables. A human financial analyst may well desire to see a financial trend over time.
automatically update the time series when new documents containing updated
tables are received to incorporate the new table data into the database and
regenerate the time series.
The examiner respectfully asserts that a human analyst could repeat this process as needed. An engaged inventor in a company would likely wish to review and digest new quarterly financial data as the company publishes it.
That is, although the invention is claimed in terms of technical language (e.g. parser, tokenizer, database, dictionary, etc), these elements appear to be merely analogues to human mental processes.
Applicant also argues that the claimed invention is a practical application of an abstract idea. (Applicant’s 2/27/26 remarks, p.6, “A generic database could not enable this functionality because a generic database would not maintain the specific indexed relationships between table versions that allow rapid identification of version histories and would not preserve the term-to-column mappings necessary for cross-document matching.
The system provides concrete technological benefits. By maintaining a single integrated database of table versions rather than storing complete document copies, the system reduces storage requirements while enabling faster retrieval of specific data elements. The indexed structure allows the system to quickly identify all previous versions of any given table without searching through entire documents. The preserved metadata enables matching across format variations that would defeat simple text-based comparison. The automatic update mechanism ensures temporal consistency without manual intervention. These are improvements to how computers process financial document data, not merely automating a manual process.”) The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although Applicant asserts that the claimed database is not a generic database, the examiner respectfully suggests that there is no recitation of a particular database structure. The claims only recite storage of data in a database, which presumably a generic database may do. Applicant also points out the benefit of a reduced storage requirement. However MPEP 2106.05a states "It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology.”. That a system only stores data it deems to be needed or pertinent rather entire documents from which the data is mined from is not believed to be a feature that improves computer technology in particular. A human could cut and paste information or articles from a larger document as well. This would also result in less storage and faster retrieval compared to a human to return to the original source material repeatedly.
Applicant also argues that the rejection does not meet the standard of proof. (Applicant’s 2/2/26 remarks, p.8). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the examiner has offered explanation for the examiner’s position, the examiner respectfully suggests that the interplay between the examiner and Applicant’s arguments does not render the examiner’s position to be uncertain. An examiner makes a prima facie case of unpatentability if they establish a "reasonable predicate" (reasonable basis) for a refusal, shifting the burden to the applicant to rebut with evidence.
Applicant also argues that claim 2 is allowable on its own notwithstanding allowable matter in claim 25. (Applicant’s 2/27/26 remarks, p.10, “The Examiner cannot logically maintain that claim 2 fails to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application while simultaneously concluding that claim 25, which includes all of claim 2's limitations plus additional GUI features, does integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional GUI features in claim 25 do not somehow transform claim 2's limitations from ineligible to eligible.”) The examiner respectfully disagrees. Case law indicates that an improved GUI interface could be considered patent eligible. (See e.g., Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), While the basic concept of "summarizing information" might be abstract and exist prior to the invention, the claims in this case were "directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices.”) Similarly, the examiner interprets that claim 2 is an abstract idea, but combined with the interface of claim 25, the invention may rise to eligibility.
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
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
Prosecution Insights