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
In amendments dated 7/21/25, Applicant amended no claims, canceled claims 22-42, and added new claims 43-60. Claims 43-60 are presented for examination.
Objections
Claims 43, 49, and 55 are objected to because of the following informalities:
the seventh limitation begins “obtaining a detector score for each of multiple detectors” but later recites “the set of detectors” which lacks antecedent basis; and
the seventh limitation recites “wherein each of the set of detectors maintains a token list of tokens” but the tenth limitation recites “removing, from the first set of tokens, tokens in one or more token lists associated with the multiple detectors” and the antecedent basis of “one or more token lists” is unclear.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 43, 49, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Each claim recites “obtaining a correction specification defining a token removal specification based on the multiple detectors and their associated types of tokens.” Examiner found support for obtaining a correction specification in specification paragraph 0050 but did not find a token removal specification in the specification.
Claims 43, 49, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Each claim recites “removing, based on the correction specification, tokens from the first set of tokens in the local copy of the document to create the altered document, wherein the removed tokens are tokens in the one or more token lists associated with the multiple detectors that meet the token removal specification.” Examiner found support for removing tokens in specification paragraph 0050 but Examiner did not find support for the removed tokens being tokens in the one or more token lists associated with the multiple detectors that meet the token removal specification.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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 43-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 43, 49, and 55 each recites reducing the first set of documents to a second set of documents for indexing by removing one or more documents of the first set of documents to generate the reduced second set of documents; and only indexing the reduced second set of documents by providing each of the second set of documents to an indexer adapted to index tokens of that document such that the document is searchable in the search system, wherein removing the one or more documents comprises, obtaining a detector score for each of multiple detectors, where each detector score for a corresponding detector indicates that one or more of the received first set of tokens is of an associated type of token corresponding to that detector, wherein each of the set of detectors maintains a token list of tokens of the associated type of token corresponding that detector and each detector evaluates each of the received first set of tokens to determine if each token is of the associated type to produce the detector score based on a count or ratio of tokens of the first set of tokens of the associated type; obtaining multiple filter scores based on each of the detector scores produced by each of the multiple detectors, each filter score based on a scoring rule defining an expression for evaluating one or more detector scores or attributes of the document and a filter score definition for producing that filter score based on the evaluation of the one or more detector scores or attributes; applying a verdict rule comprising an expression for evaluating the filter score to determine the document should be corrected; determining, by a corrector, if an altered document meets a first suitability criteria for indexing, wherein the altered document is associated with a second set of tokens determined by removing, from the first set of tokens, tokens in one or more token lists associated with the multiple detectors such that a characteristic of the second set of tokens is altered relative to that characteristic of the first set of tokens, wherein the altered document is generated by, removing, based on the correction specification, tokens from the first set of tokens in the local copy of the document to create the altered document, wherein the removed tokens are tokens in the one or more token lists associated with the multiple detectors that meet the token removal specification; and in response to determining the altered document does not meet the first suitability criteria removing the document from the first set of documents such that the document is not included in the reduced second set of documents and is thereby not indexed. Reducing the first set of documents to a second set od documents, obtaining detector scores or multiple filter scores, applying a verdict rule, determining if an altered document meets a suitability criterion, removing tokens from a set of tokens are each is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Each claim recites additional elements of receiving a first set of documents, receiving a first set of tokens, and obtaining a correction specification, which are input or data gathering steps, and storing a local copy of a document, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 43 recites a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium and claim 49 also recites a non-transitory computer readable medium, which are generic components of a computer system. Examiner notes specification paragraph 0006 discusses the "tradeoff between completeness of the indexing of the documents and the processor cycles, memory usage, size of the index or search time used by the search system using the index." Paragraph 0014 says "embodiments as disclosed provide a search system with an pre-indexing filter that provides both a sophisticated and contextually tailored approach to filtering documents and a corrector that is adapted to alter a document that has been designated to be filtered out from the indexing process and determine if the altered document should be indexed." Examiner found support for the claim limitations in specification paragraphs 0017-0018, 0022, 0025, 0050-0051, and 0101 but notes that the claim steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, the input or data gathering steps are recited broadly and amount to receiving data across a network per specification paragraph 0040 and figure 1 showing search system 101 components and repository 105 connected by networks, which are routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II, and the storing step is also a routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The processor and a non-transitory computer readable media are each still generic components of a computer system. Thus the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Claims 44, 50, and 56 each recites wherein the filter scores are tailored to a domain associated with the document, and tailoring filter scores is recited broadly and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 45, 51, and 57 each recites wherein the detectors are associated with the domain, and associating a director with a domain is an evaluation and a mental process. Claims 46, 52, and 58 each recites wherein the corrector is adapted to create the altered document comprising the second set of tokens based on the domain, and creating a document is recited broadly and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 47, 53, and 59 each recites wherein the first suitability criteria is document size or a number of the second set of tokens, and suitability criteria is data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 48, 54, and 60 each recites wherein the associated type of token comprises an attribute or type that is associated with the token or the document, and a token comprising an attribute or type is data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper.
Relevant Prior Art
During his search for prior art, Examiner found the following references to be relevant to Applicant's claimed invention. Each reference is listed on the Notice of References form included in this office action:
Hopcroft et al (US 20160378769) teaches ranking documents from a bit vector search index, does not teach detector scores for multiple detector, filter scores, a verdict rule for evaluating a filter score, or tokens of an associated type (paragraphs 0003, 0005, 0181 figure 24, 0267 figure 42);
Patterson (US 20100169305) teaches phrases to index, search, rank, and describe documents in the document collection, indexing documents using only “valid” or “good” phrases, does not teach detector scores for multiple detector, filter scores, a verdict rule for evaluating a filter score, or tokens of an associated type (paragraphs 0013, 0030, 0158-0184 figure 6); and
Persin, Michael et al, "Filtered Document Retrieval with Frequency-Sorted Indexes," teaches filtering documents by ranking statistical similarity of the query up to a threshold with documents using an inverted index of documents containing a particular term, does not teach detector scores for multiple detector, filter scores, a verdict rule for evaluating a filter score, or tokens of an associated type (Introduction pages 1-2).
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding objections to claims 22, 30, and 37 for unclear language “indexing the document by index the second set of tokens,” these claims are canceled and Examiner does not see this language in any current claims so these objections are withdrawn. Regarding objection to claim 29 for antecedent basis of “the associated type of token comprises,” in view of claim 29 being canceled and said subject matter about associated types of tokens having no antecedent basis problem, this objection is withdrawn. Regarding objections to claims 28, 36, and 42 for unclear antecedent basis of “one or more detectors,” in view of these claims being canceled and similar objections being made to claims 43, 49, and 55 above for unclear antecedent basis of “the set of detectors,” these objections to claims28, 36, and 42 are withdrawn. Regarding objections to the specification for figure 2 lacking a filter 226 and paragraphs 0054-0055 mislabeling detector scores 212 versus detector scores 220 in paragraphs 0057-0059 and 0061-0065, in view of Applicant filing replacement paragraphs 0054-0055 correcting these issues, these objections are withdrawn.
Regarding rejections of claims 22-42 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. On pages 9-15 of his Remarks Applicant discusses the Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH case and asserts “Applicant's invention solves the recognized technological problems involved in the creation and use of indexes for search systems (especially in the context of heterogeneous documents) by altering documents such that these altered documents may be indexed or removed from the documents that must be indexing, reducing both the memory requirements and computational burden involved with generation and use of indexes for documents in a search system.” Examiner disagrees as the claims recite steps which are broad or are normal actions performed on a computer and Examiner does not see inventive details that show an improvement to the technology or to a function of a computer or additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes. As examples, reciting determining if an altered document meets a suitability criteria but not reciting the steps in the determination; reciting removing tokens in one or more token lists from a first set of tokens based on a correction specification without reciting the steps in how/why tokens are removed; and reciting obtaining detector scores or filter scores without reciting the steps in obtaining said scores. Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) "The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology."
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571 270-5626. 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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 10/9/25