DETAILED ACTION
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 . Claims 1-20 are pending
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process), claim 8 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine), and claim 15 to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a machine or manufacture). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claims 1 and 8 (claim 1 being representative) is:
extracting an action from a first document, wherein the action is associated with an action parameter and a trigger condition;
extracting a first action event corresponding to the action from the first document;
mapping the extracted action to a second action event extracted from a second document, wherein the second action event corresponds to the action from the first document;
generating an ordered sequence of events for the extracted action comprising the first action event and the second action event;
providing the ordered sequence of events and the trigger condition associated with the action;
receiving an input indicating a satisfaction of the trigger condition;
responsive to satisfying the trigger condition, generating a record associated with the first document and the second document based on the extracted action;
populating the record with the action parameter;
transmitting at least one of the record or the action parameter; and
to indicate a completion status of the first action event.
The abstract idea of claim 15 is:
extracting an action and a trigger from a first document, wherein the action is associated with an action parameter;
extracting a first action event corresponding to the action from the first document;
mapping the extracted action to a second action event extracted from a second document, wherein the second action event corresponds to the action from the first document;
generating an ordered sequence of events for the extracted action comprising the first action event and the second action event;
displaying the action, the trigger, and the action parameter arranged in the ordered sequence of events;
executing the first action event responsive to receiving an indication to execute the action, wherein executing the first action event includes:
selecting a template based on the action,
generating a record using the template,
populating the record with the action parameter indicating a completion status of the first action event,
transmitting the record; and
indicating a completion status of the first action event.
The abstract idea steps italicized above are directed to analyzing and utilizing concepts from a document and adding those concepts to a record, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. This is further supported by paragraphs 0001 – 0003 of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the claim is directed to develop, track, and enforce contract clauses (i.e., legal obligations). This is a process that, under its BRI, covers legal activity. This is further supported by paragraphs 0001 - 0003 of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers commercial interactions, including contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP §2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 1 recites the following additional element: using a machine learning model; a graphical user interface comprising; to at least one of a data store, application, or a computing device.
Claim 8 recites the following additional elements: a memory component; a processing device coupled to the memory component; using a machine learning model; a graphical user interface comprising; to at least one of a data store, application, or a computing device.
Claim 15 recites the following additional elements: A non-transitory computer-readable medium; using a machine learning model; a user interface; to at least one of a data store, application, or a computing device; an updated user interface.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP §2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in paragraphs 0110 – 0115 of applicant’s specification as filed, for example. Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system.
Accordingly, these additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP §2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitates the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP §2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Further, the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Regarding claims 2, 4-5, and 9, applicant further narrows the abstract idea with additional step(s). There are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, similar to above, is also not patent eligible.
Claims 3 and 10, further narrow the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: to a computing device. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 6 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: data store. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claims 7 and 14 further narrow the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: using the machine learning model. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 11 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: processing device. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 12 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: processing device. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 13 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: data store; processing device. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 14 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: using the machine learning model. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claims 16-17 further narrow the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: non-transitory computer-readable medium. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 18 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: non-transitory computer-readable medium; user interface. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 19 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: non-transitory computer-readable medium; processing device; user device. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 20 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: non-transitory computer-readable medium; processing device. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ganapathy (US 20200327499) in view of Mckenzie (US 20100325584).
Claims 1 and 8
Regarding claims 1 and 8 Ganapathy discloses:
(claim 1) A method comprising {“Embodiments of a present disclosure relates to field of digital contract, and more particularly to a system and method for digital contract management.” (paragraph 0002)}
(claim 8) A system comprising {“Embodiments of a present disclosure relates to field of digital contract, and more particularly to a system and method for digital contract management.” (paragraph 0002)}
(claim 8) a memory component {The system includes a memory subsystem (paragraph 0024).}
(claim 8) a processing device coupled to the memory component, the processing device to perform operations comprising {“The memory subsystem is operatively coupled to processing subsystem.” (paragraph 0024)}
extracting an action from a first document using a machine learning model, wherein the action is associated with an action parameter and a trigger condition {A clause generation module uses an analysis technique (i.e., machine learning) to generate clauses from contract details retrieved from documents (paragraphs 0033-0034). The clauses generated represent contractual actions associated with parties, obligations, and/or time conditions (i.e., action parameters). The monitoring module further establishes that obligations are linked to trigger conditions, since “is configured to monitor a validated contract according to the one or more parameters for a predefined time interval” and includes alerting parties of deadlines (paragraphs 0039-0040, 0044, 0047).}
extracting a first action event corresponding to the action from the first document using the machine learning model {The clause generation module uses machine learning to generate one or more clauses from a contract template based on parameters defined by a user (paragraphs 0026, 0033, and 0057). Each generated clause contains a distinct contractual obligation or task derived from the document content. In other words, these clauses correspond to action events associated with the broader action (e.g., executing or performing the contract) (paragraphs 0032-0033 and 0044).}
mapping the extracted action to a second action event extracted from a second document, wherein the second action event corresponds to the action from the first document {A clause comparing module takes the parameters or clauses extracted from a first document and compares them with clauses from another source (e.g., pre-arranged template or another contract) (paragraph 0032, 0043).}
populating the record with the action parameter; and {The system retrieves parameters from users (e.g., contract type, party names, details) (paragraphs 0021 and 0027) and uses them to generate clauses (paragraph 0064). These generated clauses are stored along with the parameters in a memory, which forms a record associated with the contract document (paragraphs 0024 and 0064).}
updating the graphical user interface to indicate a completion status of the first action event {Users may validate each clause in single time and “may negotiate on terms and condition online for a time duration” and before authorization, “small key features may be checked and verified as commented by different hierarchy of people” (i.e., on an updated GUI) (paragraph 0046). Additionally, the monitoring module “is configured to monitor a validated contract according to the one or more parameters for a predefined time interval” (paragraph 0039) and can notify by alerts (paragraph 0040).}
Ganapathy does not disclose:
generating an ordered sequence of action events for the extracted action comprising the first action event and the second action event;
transmitting at least one of the record or the action parameter to at least one of a data store, application, or a computing device;
providing a graphical user interface comprising the ordered sequence of action events and the trigger condition associated with the action;
receiving an input indicating a satisfaction of the trigger condition;
responsive to satisfying the trigger condition, generating a record associated with the first document and the second document based on the extracted action.
However, Mckenzie, in a similar field of endeavor directed to facilitating the review of electronic documents, teaches:
generating an ordered sequence of action events for the extracted action comprising the first action event and the second action event; {The system supports workflows in which multiple events trigger actions processed within workflow structures (i.e., ordered sequence of events). paragraphs 0140, 0143 – 0144}
transmitting at least one of the record or the action parameter to at least one of a data store, application, or a computing device; {The system transmits and stores user inputs (e.g., records, actions) to databases and across system components (e.g., web server, data stores, terminals). paragraphs 0137, 0139 – 0140}
providing a graphical user interface comprising the ordered sequence of action events and the trigger condition associated with the action; {The GUI displays actions derived from triggering events and allows navigation based on those events. paragraphs 0134, 0162 – 0163}
receiving an input indicating a satisfaction of the trigger condition; {The system receives user input in response to actions triggered by events (e.g., reviewing, rating). paragraphs 0137, 0180 – 0181}
responsive to satisfying the trigger condition, generating a record associated with the first document and the second document based on the extracted action; {The system generates and stores records (e.g., reviews, triggers, results) associated with documents upon user action. paragraphs 0142 – 0145, 0181, 0243}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the contract management features of Ganapathy, to include the electronic document review features of Mckenzie, to improve the efficiency of user’s efforts in reviewing documents. (See paragraphs 0004, and 0009 of Mckenzie).
Claims 2 and 9
Regarding claims 2 and 9, the combination of Ganapathy and Mckenzie teaches the limitations set forth above.
Ganapathy further discloses:
wherein generating the record associated with the first document or the second document further comprises: mapping the extracted action to a template {The template module is configured to identify one or more parameters extracted from users or documents and provide a pre-arranged template based on those parameters (paragraphs 0021 and 0031).}
and generating the record based on a copy of the template. {A template module provides a pre-arranged template (paragraphs 0021 and 0031). The clause generation module then generates clauses by applying an analysis technique to the pre-arranged template (paragraph 0033).}
Claims 6 and 13
Regarding claims 6 and 13, the combination of Ganapathy and Lerato Hunn teaches the limitations set forth above.
Ganapathy further discloses:
querying a data store for information associated with the action. {The retrieval module and clause comparing module operate over a memory subsystem which stores validated clauses, templates, and contracts (paragraphs 0024 and 0048), enabling querying the memory for information associated with a contractual action (paragraphs 0032-0033).
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ganapathy and Mckenzie teaches the limitations set forth above.
Ganapathy further discloses:
wherein populating the record further comprises at least one of: populating the record with queried information associated with the action; or populating the record with additional information extracted from the first document or the second document using the machine learning model {The system may retrieve parameters associated with a contract (paragraph 0026), and use them to generate and store clauses in a contract record (i.e., populates the record) (paragraphs 0024, 0032, and 0041).}
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ganapathy and Mckenzie teaches the limitations set forth above.
Ganapathy further discloses:
wherein populating the record further comprises at least one of: populating the record with queried information associated with the action; or populating the record with additional information extracted from the first document or the second document using the machine learning model {The system may retrieve parameters associated with a contract (paragraph 0026), and use them to generate and store clauses in a contract record (i.e., populates the record) (paragraphs 0024, 0032, and 0041).}
Claims 3-5, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ganapathy and Mckenzie, in further view of Lerato Hunn (US 20200357084).
Claims 3 and 10
Regarding claims 3 and 10, while the combination of Ganapathy and Mckenzie teaches the limitations set forth above it does not explicitly teach, however, Lerato Hunn, in a similar field of endeavor directed to a blockchain-based network transitioned by a legal contract, teaches:
wherein executing the first action event includes transmitting the record to a computing device. {Executing a programmable clause in a computable legal contract may trigger external actions based on contract logic (e.g., API calls, push notifications, invocation of external systems) (paragraphs 0054-0056).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Ganapathy and Mckenzie, to include the automatic contract tracking features of Lerato Hunn, to improve privacy, versioning and amendment flexibility of contracts, and security. (see paragraph 0059 of Lerato Hunn).
Claims 4 and 11
Regarding claims 4 and 11, while the combination of Ganapathy and Mckenzie teaches the limitations set forth above it does not explicitly teach, however, Lerato Hunn, in a similar field of endeavor directed to a blockchain-based network transitioned by a legal contract, teaches:
displaying an action tracker including the action and the action parameter extracted from the first document {The system maintains and displays the state of contract execution in real-time and stores events , transitions, and parameters linked to contractual obligations (paragraphs 0068-0071). Events and updates are viewable via contract dashboards on the Contract Management Platform (CMP) (paragraph 0065).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Ganapathy and Mckenzie, to include the automatic contract tracking features of Lerato Hunn, to improve privacy, versioning and amendment flexibility of contracts, and security. (see paragraph 0059 of Lerato Hunn).
Claims 5 and 12
Regarding claims 5 and 12, while the combination of Ganapathy and Mckenzie teaches the limitations set forth above it does not explicitly teach, however, Lerato Hunn, in a similar field of endeavor directed to a blockchain-based network transitioned by a legal contract, teaches:
updating the action tracker using a previous action and a previous action parameter extracted from a previous document. {The system stores a versioned contract state and maintains historical events and actions. Each event change is stored (paragraphs 0068-0072). When subsequent actions are executed, the system can retrieve and utilize prior events and action data as part of the execution context (paragraphs 0053 and 0123).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Ganapathy and Mckenzie, to include the automatic contract tracking features of Lerato Hunn, to improve privacy, versioning and amendment flexibility of contracts, and security. (see paragraph 0059 of Lerato Hunn).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ganapathy (US 20200327499) in view of Mckenzie (US 20100325584), in further view of Lerato Hunn (US 20200357084).
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15 Ganapathy discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions, which when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: {“The memory 30 includes a plurality of modules stored in the form of executable program which instructs the processor 160 to perform the method steps.” (paragraph 0052)}
extracting an action and a trigger from a first document using a machine learning model, wherein the action is associated with an action parameter; {Contract clauses are generated using an analysis technique, including machine learning (i.e., extracts semantic content from a contract document) (paragraph 0033). The system retrieves one or more parameters from users and uses these to generate clauses based on identified needs, extracting an action (i.e., clause or obligation, including a deadline) associated with a parameter defined by a user. (paragraphs 002, 0033, and 0039).}
extracting a first action event corresponding to the action from the first document using the machine learning model {The clause generation module uses machine learning to generate one or more clauses from a contract template based on parameters defined by a user (paragraphs 0026, 0033, and 0057). Each generated clause contains a distinct contractual obligation or task derived from the document content. In other words, these clauses correspond to action events associated with the broader action (e.g., executing or performing the contract) (paragraphs 0032-0033 and 0044).}
mapping the extracted action to a second action event extracted from a second document, wherein the second action event corresponds to the action from the first document {A clause comparing module takes the parameters or clauses extracted from a first document and compares them with clauses from another source (e.g., pre-arranged template or another contract) (paragraph 0032, 0043).}
executing the first action event in a sequence of action events responsive to receiving an indication to execute the action, wherein executing the first action event includes: {The monitoring module triggers operations related to the contract based on user parameters predefined intervals (paragraphs 0023 and 0039).}
selecting a template based on the action {The template module identifies parameters (i.e., the action) and provides a corresponding pre-defined template (paragraphs 0021 and 0031).}
generating a record using the template and {The clause generation module generates contract clauses within a template based on user parameters or machine learning techniques (paragraphs 0022-0023, and 0033).}
populating the record with the action parameter {The system retrieves and stores parameters from users, which are used to generate and populate clauses in the contract (paragraph 0052).}
displaying an updated user interface indicating a completion status of the first action event {The validation module “enables in validating each clause in single time” and both parties may negotiate on terms and conditions online (paragraph 0046). Also, the monitoring module “is configured to monitor a validated contract according to the one or more parameters for a predefined time interval [… and] notify […] by alerts, electronic mail notifications and the like” (paragraphs 0039-0040).}
Ganapathy does not disclose:
generating an ordered sequence of action events for the extracted action comprising the first action event and the second action event;
transmitting the record to at least one of a data store, application, or a computing device;
displaying a user interface including the action, the trigger, and the action parameter arranged in the ordered sequence of events.
However, Mckenzie, in a similar field of endeavor directed to facilitating the review of electronic documents, teaches:
generating an ordered sequence of action events for the extracted action comprising the first action event and the second action event {The system supports workflows in which multiple events trigger actions processed within workflow structures (i.e., ordered sequence of events). paragraphs 0140, 0143 – 0144}
transmitting at least one of the record or the action parameter to at least one of a data store, application, or a computing device; {The system transmits and stores user inputs (e.g., records, actions) to databases and across system components (e.g., web server, data stores, terminals). paragraphs 0137, 0139 – 0140}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the contract management features of Ganapathy, to include the electronic document review features of Mckenzie, to improve the efficiency of user’s efforts in reviewing documents. (See paragraphs 0004, and 0009 of Mckenzie).
The combination of Ganapathy and Mckenzie does not teach:
displaying a user interface including the action, the trigger, and the action parameter arranged in the ordered sequence of events.
However, Lerato Hunn, in a similar field of endeavor directed to a blockchain-based network transitioned by a legal contract, teaches:
displaying a user interface including the action, the trigger, and the action parameter arranged in the workflow { The system, through the Contract Management Platform (CMP), allows users to manage and execute contracts through an interface that includes dashboards for viewing the contract state and contract data, presenting the workflow of contract execution (e.g., audit trails, analytics, and contact clause information) (paragraph 0065). The CMP also supports user interaction with programmable clauses and execution logic (i.e., obligations, deadlines, and parameters extracted or defined in the contract model) (paragraphs 0063-0065).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Ganapathy and Mckenzie to include the automatic contract tracking features of Lerato Hunn, to improve privacy, versioning and amendment flexibility of contracts, and security. (see paragraph 0059 of Lerato Hunn).
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Ganapathy, Mckenzie, and Lerato Hunn teaches the limitations set forth above.
Ganapathy further discloses:
wherein receiving the indication to execute the action further comprises: receiving a user input indicating that a trigger condition is satisfied. {The validation module allows users to review and verify generated clauses prior to final authorization. The validation can be regarding one key specific feature (i.e., trigger condition) (paragraphs 0036-0037).}
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Ganapathy, Mckenzie, and Lerato Hunn teaches the limitations set forth above.
Ganapathy further discloses:
wherein receiving the indication to execute the action further comprises: determining that a trigger condition is satisfied. {The monitoring module is configured to track validated contracts “according to the one or more parameters for a predefined time interval”, and alerts may be generated based on conditions being met. The system making the “determination” prompts notifications or validation (paragraphs 0039-0040).}
Claim 18
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Ganapathy, Mckenzie, and Lerato Hunn teaches the limitations set forth above.
Lerato Hunn further teaches:
wherein the user interface includes a previous action and a previous trigger extracted from a previous document {The system stores a versioned contract state and maintains historical events and actions. Each event change is stored (paragraphs 0068-0072). This versioned information may be displayed in the CMP (paragraph 0065).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Ganapathy, Mckenzie, and Lerato Hunn, to include the automatic contract tracking features of Lerato Hunn, to improve privacy, versioning and amendment flexibility of contracts, and security. (see paragraph 0059 of Lerato Hunn).
Claim 19
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Ganapathy, Mckenzie, and Lerato Hunn teaches the limitations set forth above.
Lerato Hunn further teaches:
receiving a user selection to rearrange at least one of the action, the previous action, the trigger, or the previous trigger displayed on the user interface {The user interface enables user interaction by allowing it to “edit, negotiate, form, execute, manage, and analyze contracts”. It also enables users to edit past contract data (e.g., audit trails) (paragraphs 0063 and 0065) (see also paragraph 0074).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Ganapathy, Mckenzie, and Lerato Hunn, to include the automatic contract tracking features of Lerato Hunn, to improve privacy, versioning and amendment flexibility of contracts, and security. (see paragraph 0059 of Lerato Hunn).
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Ganapathy, Mckenzie, and Lerato Hunn teaches the limitations set forth above.
Lerato Hunn further teaches:
overlaying a visual indicator indicating a portion of the first document corresponding to the extracted action or the extracted trigger {It is described how extracted parameters (i.e., actions or triggers) are visually resalted in the generated clause (paragraph 0117).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Ganapathy, Mckenzie, and Lerato Hunn, to include the automatic contract tracking features of Lerato Hunn, to improve privacy, versioning and amendment flexibility of contracts, and security. (see paragraph 0059 of Lerato Hunn).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim objections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant has conflated the abstract idea, considered at Step 2A Prong One, with the additional elements, considered at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B. Here, examiner identified the following steps as part of the abstract idea: extracting an action from a first document, wherein the action is associated with an action parameter and a trigger condition;
extracting a first action event corresponding to the action from the first document;
mapping the extracted action to a second action event extracted from a second document, wherein the second action event corresponds to the action from the first document;
generating an ordered sequence of events for the extracted action comprising the first action event and the second action event;
providing the ordered sequence of events and the trigger condition associated with the action;
receiving an input indicating a satisfaction of the trigger condition;
responsive to satisfying the trigger condition, generating a record associated with the first document and the second document based on the extracted action;
populating the record with the action parameter;
transmitting at least one of the record or the action parameter; and
to indicate a completion status of the first action event.
The machine learning model, data store, application, and/or computing device are considered additional elements, which are merely facilitating the tasks of said abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f) is clear that this generic recitation does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more. This interpretation holds whether the additional elements are viewed alone or in combination, where the combination of elements is nothing more than a network-enabled computing system. (Examiner notes that the phrase "well-understood, routine, and conventional" was not used in the eligibility analysis. Instead, examiner relied on MPEP 2106.05(f), as explained above.)
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding any arguments concerning the dependent claims, examiner notes that they are predicated on the independent claims, which have been amended. For the same reason as above, these arguments are moot. Examiner directs applicant’s attention to the claim analysis above.
In summary, examiner has responded to all arguments and found them unpersuasive.
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 CARLOS F MONTALVO whose telephone number is (703)756-5863. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00AM - 5:30PM; First Fridays OOO.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/C.F.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629