DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed on 04/24/2026. Claims 1, 3, 5-13, 15, 17-21 are pending and have been examined.
Any objections/rejections not mentioned in this Office Action has been withdrawn by the Examiner.
Change of Examiner
The Examiner of record has changed from Feng-Tzer Tzeng to Paras Shah.
Compact Prosecution
The examiner provides the following recommendations in order to advance prosecution. In addition to what is currently claim, the Examiner recommends incorporating the subject matter of [0034], [0035], [0038], and [0048], [0053]-[0055]. These paragraphs provide more of the background of how the process is taking place which includes the user being authenticated to the service provided by the document processing server and once authenticated allows the user to gain access to the service. The user device then transmits the contract to the server device and on the display screen corrections are determined and provided on a display via various GUI buttons. The user selects one of the correction buttons on the GUI which causes the correction request to be sent to the document processing server and then the correction is performed and the document sent back to the user device. These aspects will help to overcome the present 35 USC 101 abstract rejections.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: “diving” in line 8, line 9 should be “dividing” Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
With respect to the 35 USC 101 abstract rejections, the Applicant asserts that claims 4 and 16 are now incorporated into claims 1 and 13. However, claims 4 and 16 have already been cancelled since the claim set of 12/18/2025. Therefore, the examiner unsure as to why this point is noted by the Applicant
Further, the Applicant notes that that the “claimed invention achieves an improvement in the related art that enables easy correction of order letters with respect to both the header information and body information of the units information.”
Further Applicant asserts: “In addition, since displaying information on a screen occurs automatically, the display information cannot be performed through human thought processes. Thus, the claimed invention provides technological improvement in that the display facilitates user verification and correction of units information that is not in the ascending order and sequentially numbered in the header section, as well as units information included in the body of the text.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the assertion related to the improvement this reasoning relates to the abstract idea. In other words, the entire scope of the claim can be performed mentally and therefore cannot be said to improve computer technology (see Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally) (see MPEP 2106.05(a). Further, the same section of the MPEP states that “Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer)”. With respect to the present claims, each of the limitations can be performed by a human, by checking the order letters are in ascending and serially numbered according to the header information, and body information and if not letting the original writer of the document know that there is an issue with the letter ordering or the serial numbering.
With respect to the second assertion raised by the Applicant based on the further amendment made to the claims related to providing a “screen” for displaying the correction information, this constitutes incorporation of extra solution activity. In this case, the extra solution activity is displaying the correction result to the user and is not considered to be an additional element that ties the judicial exception to a practical application and deemed to be not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Hence, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Independent claims 1, 13 and their dependent claims 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.
The independent claims 1, 13 recite a method and a device for the purpose of detecting, alerting and correcting the order letters to be in the ascending order and serially numbered, thus relating to a statutory category.
In particular, claims 1, 13 recite “confirming whether order letters are in an ascending order and serially numbered .. the order letters being extracted from header information .. the units information including the header information and body information .. outputting alert information including a correction candidate which shows the order letters being in the ascending order and serially numbered .. searching the body information .. for a letter corresponding to one of the order letters which is confirmed to be not in the ascending order and serially numbered .. document processing method further includes displaying [a screen] indicating a document corresponding to the document information and the correction candidate, the one of the order letters which is confirmed to be not in the ascending order and serially numbered, and the letter in the body information corresponding to the one of the order letters being displayed in a manner different from other letters [in the screen]” where every processing step can be performed by a human as a mental process directed to correcting order letters which are in ascending and serial order and found in body and title/headers of a document and providing recommendations to the writer when an error is found.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claims 1, 13 recite additional elements of “processor” and “memory” (SPEC [0021] - The control unit 10 may include a processor such as a CPU, and may be electrically connected to the storage unit 11 including a memory) which amount to general purpose computing devices. Further, the claim recites a “screen” for the displaying of the document and the corrections. However, the screen is only being used as extra solution activity of presenting the results and document to a user. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor is noted as a general computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional limitations in the claims noted above are directed towards insignificant solution activity. The claims are not patent eligible. Furthermore, for all dependent claims:
Claims 3, 15: “extracting letters corresponding to the order letters .. outputting the alert ..” can be performed by a human. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 5, 17: “sending the alert to .. user terminals via a network ..” can be performed by a human. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 6, 18: “reviewing the document information and the alert ..” can be performed by a human. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 7, 19: “the document information is contract document ..” can be processed by a human. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 8, 20: “the order letter includes at least two levels ..” can be processed by a human. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9: “the document information includes article header ..” can be processed by a human. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10: “whether the order letter is in the ascending order and serially numbered based on the article header information ..” can be performed by a human. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11: “displaying the document information and the alert information in parallel ..” can be performed by a human, with the help of a generic computer. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12: “if a certain order letter is duplicated or missing and all the subsequent order letters need to be moved up or down, a message indicating that subsequent order letters need to be rearranged ..” can be performed by a human, with the help of a generic computer. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 21: “in response to receiving correction by a user, correcting the order letter which is confirmed to be not in the ascending order and serially numbered in the header information and the body information according to the received correction” can be performed by a human, with the help of a generic computer where a human provides the correction confirmation from the writer and is corrected. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5-13, 15, 17-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the cited prior art either alone or in combination teaches the combination of limitations as cited in the independent claims. More specifically, the limitations of “the body information being different from the header information; outputting alert information including a correction candidate which shows the order letters being in the ascending order and serially numbered; and searching the body information of the units information for a letter corresponding to one of the order letters which is confirmed to be not in the ascending order and serially numbered, wherein the alert information indicates the letter in the body information corresponding to the one of the order letters which is confirmed to be not in the ascending order and serially numbered, and the document processing method further includes displaying a screen indicating a document corresponding to the document information and the correction candidate, the one of the order letters which is confirmed to be not in the ascending order and serially numbered, and the letter in the body information corresponding to the one of the order letters being displayed in a manner different from other letters in the screen” are not taught by the prior art of record where within the body and header the letters are sequentially ordered and numbered and checked to ensure the order letters is sequential and serially numbered and if not correction is presented to the user.
The closest prior art of record JPH07271793 (as cited in IDS) discloses the ability to correct/edit consecutive numbers which may be disorder through user input. However, the reference fails to teach the above limitation as noted as a whole specifically in relation to the header and body and ensuring the ordering of letters are sequential and numbered and to provide a user a notification for the correction to occur.
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 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 PARAS D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-2:30PM, 5PM-7PM (EST), Friday 8AM-noon (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, PARAS D SHAH can be reached at 571-270-1650. 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.
/Paras D Shah/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
06/28/2026
Prosecution Insights