DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on December 16, 2025. The application contains claims 1-18:
Claim 12 was previously cancelled
Claims 5, 7-9, and 17 are amended
Claims 1-11 and 13-18 are pending.
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 and amendments filed on December 16, 2025 have been fully considered and the objections and rejections are updated accordingly.
Claim Objections
In view of the amendments to the claims, the objections to claims 5, and 7-9 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendments to the claims, the 35 USC § 112 rejections to claims 17 and 18 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
In response to Applicant’s main argument in Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment that tries to draw a similarity of the claimed invention to Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp. and Berkheimer V. HP, Inc. by claiming that the claimed invention teaches "parsing regulatory filings into a tagged data structure, such as one comprising JSON objects" that results in "improved computer processing efficiency and reduced storage demands", the examiner disagrees.
The examiner notes the following Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp. and Berkheimer V. HP, Inc. excerpts Applicant quoted on page 1 and 2 of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, respectively:
“When conducting a patent eligibility analysis, claims have been found to recite patent eligible subject matter when they improve the performance or storage of computing systems. M.P.E.P. $2106.05(a). In discussing Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the M.P.E.P. observed that "the specification's discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility." Id. (emphasis added).”
"In contrast, the Federal Circuit held that claims 4-7 do contain limitations directed to purported improvements described in the specification (e.g., claim 4 recites "storing a reconciled object structure in the archive without substantial redundancy," which the specification explains improves system operating efficiency and reduces storage costs), raising a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the purported improvements were more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known in the industry. Id. at 1370. The Federal Circuit therefore reversed the district court's decision on summary judgment that claims 4-7 are patent ineligible, and remanded for further fact finding as to the eligibility of those claims. Id. at 1370-71."
As underscored in the above two excerpts, not only should the claims recite “specific data structure” but the specification should also explain “how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory” because of the “specific data structure”. But in the present application, neither do the claims recite any specific data structure that reduces storage nor does the specification explain how any specific data structure contributes to the storage reduction. Paragraphs [0068] and [0072] Applicant cited in the argument merely make blanket statements without offering any specifics.
As such, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are updated and maintained. Please refer below for details.
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 1-11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The 2019 PEG guidance for subject matter eligibility is applied in the following analyses:
At Step 1
The inventions of claims 1-11 and 13-18 are directed to the statutory categories of a process (claims 1-11 and 13-16), and another process (claims 17-18). Thus, the claimed invention is directed to statutory subject matter.
The following analysis refers to independent claims 1 and 17.
At Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1 and 17 each recite abstract ideas in the following limitations:
“determining the document type of the received document” (claim 1) encompasses a mental process as an evaluation or judgement. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
“parsing the document into a tagged data structure, the tagged data structure corresponding to the document type structure of the document” (claim 1) and “parsing the document into a tagged data structure, the tagged data structure having a plurality of document components corresponding to the Form 10-K document type structure” and “wherein the tagged data structure comprises a plurality of part tags corresponding to Parts in SEC form 10-K, each part tag comprising a plurality of item tags corresponding to Items in SEC form 10-K, and each item tag comprising a plurality of sub section tags” (claim 17). The plain meaning of “parsing” is merely to analyze something into parts. At a high-level of generality, one can mentally parse a document, such as analyzing and evaluating that it contains certain sections such as a heading, a body, and a footer. The BRI of “tagged data structure” covers something as disclosed in paragraph [0011] of the specification where it is merely hierarchy of tags. One can mentally judge sections of a document and mentally apply tags, even hierarchically. Both claim 17 and the specification in paragraph [0009] essentially say this “tagged data structure” and “part tags” are merely “corresponding to parts in SEC form 10-K.” One can mentally look at that form and judge it has those parts/structure. Therefore, based on the BRI, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
“calculating sentiment for the plurality of document components within the populated tagged data structure by calculating sentiment independently for a plurality of lower-level document components of the populated tagged data structure and combining sentiment from lower-level document components to calculate sentiment for higher-level document components of the populated tagged data structure”. “calculating sentiment” of the components can be performed in the human mind. “combining” lower-level sentiments to calculate a higher-level sentiment is essentially an aggregation, which if the sentiment is a score, would be math, and if the sentiment is merely an opinion, would still be a mentally performable evaluation or judgement. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
“combining the retrieved stored calculated sentiment to calculate sentiment for the selected document component across an industry sector” (claim 1) and “wherein the step of calculating sentiment for the plurality of document components within the populated tagged data structure comprises: calculating a sentiment for each sub section tag; calculating a sentiment for each item tag by averaging a sentiment for each sub section tag within each respective item tag; and calculating a sentiment for each part tag by averaging sentiments for each item tag within each respective part tag” (claim 17). For claim 1, one can mentally combine sentiments or scores. This BRI is consistent with the specification as in paragraphs [0006] and [0048] which only mention such combining in the broadest sense. There is no indication in the specification that this “combining” is done in any particular fashion at all. For claim 17, combining sentiments or scores by averaging is simple arithmetic that can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, these limitations may be characterized as a mental process.
At Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims 1 and 17 each recite the additional elements of:
“for parsing documents filed with a regulatory agency, each document having a document type and being associated with a filing entity, where each document type has a corresponding document type structure including a plurality of document components, and each filing entity is associated with at least one industry sector” (claim 1) and “parsing documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), each document having a SEC Form 10-K document type and being associated with a filing entity” (claim 17). The elements “documents filed with a regulatory agency” (claim 1), “documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)” (claim 17), “each document having a SEC Form 10-K document type” (claim 17), “being associated with a filing entity”, and “each filing entity is associated with at least one industry sector” (claim 1) are intended use. The elements “each document having a document type” and “where each document type has a corresponding document type structure including a plurality of document components” recited in claim 1 recite a “document type structure” at a high level of generality that encompasses any document type, while the elements “each document having a SEC Form 10-K document type” recited in claim 17 recites an intended use of the abstract idea in SEC Form 10-K filing. Because the claim would operate the same way with documents of a specified structure on any database of documents, regardless of where the documents were filed, the limitation may be characterized as intended use.
“receiving a document” may be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly preliminary data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“storing the populated tagged data structure in a database”. The claim does not recite any later use or connection of this “database”. The next steps merely perform an abstract idea of calculating sentiments of the document components within the tagged data structure, which can occur as a mental process without the need for “storing” or “making … available ...”. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“making the populated tagged data structure available over a computer network”. The claim does not recite that the availability over the computer is consequential. The abstract idea of calculating sentiments of the document components within the tagged data structure can occur as a mental process without the need for “making … available …”. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
“storing the calculated sentiment for the plurality of document components” and “retrieving stored calculated sentiment for a selected document component filed by different filing entities associated with a common industry sector” (claim 1). Neither the specification nor the claim language describes the “storing” as being of any specific importance to the subsequent “combining” operation. Rather, it is described as merely storing on a computer the data to perform the mental process – but that is no more than ‘apply’ the abstract idea on a computer. Specifically, other than “storing the calculated sentiment …” and then “retrieving stored calculated sentiment…”, one can still perform the entire process mentally of calculating sentiment for the components and then combining/aggregating calculated sentiment for components across an industry sector. Adding the “storing …” and “retrieving …” steps is superfluous to the mental process, and essentially just recites computer storage/retrieval as an insignificant extra-solution operation. Therefore, these limitations may be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activities, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B
Claims 1 and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above the additional elements constitute a high-level recitation of a generic computer components which represent mere instructions to apply on a computer, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to economy and commerce, and insignificant extra-solution activities including preliminary data gathering and post-solution activities.
As per MPEP 2106.05(II), at Step 2B the conclusions for these additional elements under MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h) from Step 2A Prong Two are carried over and they do not provide significantly more. The additional elements from Step 2A Prong Two considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g) are re-evaluated as follows:
“receiving a document”. Receiving a document is claimed at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have found these functions as well understood and routine activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d) [Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)].
“storing the calculated sentiment for the plurality of document components” (claim 1) and “storing the populated tagged data structure in a database” are claimed at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have found these functions as well understood and routine activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d) [Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93].
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claim 3 recites additional elements elaborating on the further details of the “document” recited in the abstract idea in independent claim 1 that are still mentally performable.
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 10 each recite additional elements of “XML” or “JSON” at a high level of generality that may be characterized as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 8, 9, and 14 each recite additional elements of “SEC filing” or “SEC Form 10-K” that may be characterized as intended use.
Dependent claim 11 recites additional elements elaborating on the further details of the abstract idea “calculating” in independent claim 1 that are still mentally performable.
Dependent claim 13 recites additional elements elaborating on the further details of the abstract idea “calculating” in independent claim 1 that are still mentally performable. The “storing” limitation constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in claim 1 above.
Dependent claims 15, 16, and 18 each recite additional elements elaborating on the further details of the abstract idea “calculating” in independent claim 1 and 17, respectively, that are still mentally performable. The “retrieving” limitation constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in claim 1 above.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18 are also rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOQIN HU whose telephone number is (571)272-1792. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/XIAOQIN HU/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168