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 .
Status of Application
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Application filed on 9/25/2023 and the subsequent filing with the same claims on 10/10/2023. Claims 1-10 are pending. No claims are allowed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/25/2023 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) with no practical application and without significantly more.
Under MPEP 2106, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A prong 1), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2). If an abstract idea is present in the claim without integration into a practical application, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (step 2B).
In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a computer implement method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (step 1). However, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea (step 2).
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the test is to identify whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception. Examiner notes that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), certain methods of organizing human activity specifically commercial interactions and behaviors and managing personal behavior and/or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) and mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 1. A computer-implemented and interactive real estate contract generation and editing process comprising the steps of: providing a first electronic computing device of a first user and having an electronic display configured to display a digital graphical user interface (GUI) and a computer server; communicatively coupling the first electronic computing device of the first user to the computer server over a wireless communication network; and initiating a network-based remote easy contract formation session that includes: generating a plurality of independent and sequentially viewable windows on the GUI of the electronic display of the first electronic computing device, wherein each of the independent and sequentially viewable windows displaying at least one contract formation text therein and at least one digital data input field; receiving alpha-numeric text corresponding to contract formation data within each of the plurality of digital data input fields from the first user; executing a software-based learning tool ascertaining the contract formation data and comparing it to a learning data structure to ascertain a match corresponding to a user understanding of the at least one contract formation text associated with each of the independent and sequentially viewable windows; and generating, after completion of the plurality of independent and sequentially viewable windows and at a conclusion of the network-based remote easy contract formation session, a digital document with a plurality of independent paragraphs each having at least one fillable contract data field disposed therein and assigned to and filled in with at a portion of software-defined and software-selected contract formation data using the software-based learning tool to create a finalized digital document without any fillable contract data field therein.
Claim 8. A computer-implemented and interactive real estate contract generation and editing process comprising the steps of: providing a first electronic computing device of a first user and having an electronic display configured to display a digital graphical user interface (GUI) and a computer server; communicatively coupling the first electronic computing device of the first user to the computer server over a wireless communication network; and initiating a network-based remote easy contract formation session that includes: generating a plurality of independent and sequentially viewable windows on the GUI of the electronic display of the first electronic computing device, wherein each of the independent and sequentially viewable windows displaying at least one contract formation text therein and at least one digital data input field identified by an assigned array index on an array data structure; receiving alpha-numeric text corresponding to contract formation data within each of the plurality of digital data input fields from the first user; and generating, after completion of the plurality of independent and sequentially viewable windows and at a conclusion of the network-based remote easy contract formation session, a digital document with a plurality of independent preformed paragraphs each having at least one fillable contract data field disposed therein and assigned to, using the array data structure with the assigned array index, and filled in with contract formation data received within each of the plurality of digital data input fields from the first user to create a finalized digital document without any fillable contract data field therein.
Examiner notes that claims 1-10 recite a method for receiving document information, processing the information in order to generate a plurality of display elements related to a contract, receive inputs such as edits, and generating a final document for display to the user which is directed to concepts that are performed mentally and a product of human mental work. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of receiving information, processing the information, and displaying the result of the information, and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Alternatively, Examiner notes that claims 1-10 recite a method for generating a real estate contract document by presenting document/contract elements to the user, receiving edits related to the terms and elements of the contract, and outputting the final document of the agreement to the users, and is similar to the abstract idea identified in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) in grouping “II” in that the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity such as legal or business interactions and fundamental economic practices. This is merely further embellishments of the abstract idea and does not further limit the claimed invention to render the claims patentable subject matter. The limitations, substantially comprising the body of the claim, recite standard processes found in standard practice in contract formation and entering into agreements. Terms and elements are sequentially fleshed out until a final document is created and formed between the parties. This is common practice when people enter into any agreement such as a purchase of real estate or any other contract scenario. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps standard in interactions between people and businesses such as contractual relationships or real estate purchases, and the steps of the claims involve organizing human activity, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “organizing human activity” grouping set forth in the see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Additionally, Examiner notes that the claims contain language directed to “executing a software-based learning tool”, which amounts to, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the system requires specific mathematical calculations (training the algorithm using stored legal information related to clients, cases, jurisdiction, etc.). “a digital document with a plurality of independent paragraphs each having at least one fillable contract data field disposed therein and assigned to and filled in with at a portion of software-defined and software-selected contract formation data using the software-based learning tool to create a finalized digital document without any fillable contract data field therein. Said differently, the software-based learning tool is programmed select all or a portion of the contract formation data such that it makes sense (based on a programmed or learned data structure) of the contract formation data within the overall and surrounding text of the written contract” (See at least Specification ¶ 67) and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, the claimed invention falls within the mental process/certain method of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas, and steps fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
The conclusion that the claim recites an abstract idea within the groupings of the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) remains grounded in the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the description of the invention in the specification. For example, [App. Spec 1], “a computer-implemented and interactive real estate contract generation and editing process”. Accordingly, the Examiner submits claims 1-10, recite an abstract idea based on the language identified in claims 1 and 8, and the abstract ideas previously identified based on that language that remains consistent with the groupings of Step 2A Prong 1 of the MPEP 2106.04(a)(1).
If the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to a method instructing the reader to implement the identified method of organizing human activity of legal interactions and fundamental economic practices (i.e., contractual relationships, real estate purchases) on generically claimed computer structure. For instance, the additional elements or combination of elements other than the abstract idea itself include the elements such as “computing device”, “GUI”, “display”, “server”, “network”, “learning tool”, and “data structure” recited at a high level of generality. These elements do not themselves amount to an improvement to the interface or computer, to a technology or another technical field. This is consistent with Applicant’s disclosure which states that the computing device is “as shown in FIGS. 1-3, includes a first Step 302 of the process 300 which comprises providing a first electronic computing device 102a of a first user 104a, the electronic computing device 102a having an electronic display 210, a memory 206, a user input interface 202, and a network interface 204. In preferred embodiments, the first electronic computing device 102a may consist of a cell phone, smart phone, laptop, tablet, desktop computer, or other15 comparable electronic computing or processing device 208. The memory 206 is non-transitory wherein "non-transitory" is defined as a resident memory. The electronic computing devices 102a-n which may be a cellphone or tablet, for example, are operable to execute programming instructions embodied in the process 300 that can be received from a computer server 108 via a wide area network (WAN) 106. Said differently, the electronic computing devices 102a-n are operable to execute the programming instructions received from the computer server 108 over the WAN 106. In other embodiments, the process 300 is embodied in a web-based software application, a desktop software application, or a mobile device software app. In one embodiment, the WAN is the Internet. The Internet represents a worldwide collection of networks and gateways that use the TCP/IP suite of protocols to communicate with one another. At the heart of the Internet is a backbone of high- speed data communication lines between major nodes or host computers, consisting of thousands of commercial, government, educational and other computer systems that route data and messages. Of course, the network 106 also may be implemented as a number of different types of networks, such as for example, an Intranet, a local area network (LAN), or a cellular network. FIG. 1 is intended as an example, and not as an architectural limitation for the present invention. As shown in FIG. 1, the network 106 includes connections 110a-n, which are the medium used to provide communication links between various devices and computers connected together within the network 106.”. (App. Spec. ¶ 50).
Accordingly, the claimed “system” read in light of the specification employs any wide range of possible devices comprising a number of components that are “well-known” and included in an indiscriminate “computing device”, “GUI”, “display”, “server”, “network”, “learning tool”, and “data structure” (e.g., processing device, modules). Thus, the claimed structure amounts to appending generic computer elements to abstract idea comprising the body of the claim. The computing elements are only involved at a general, high level, and do not have the particular role within any of the functions but to be an computer-implemented method using a generically claimed “computing device”, “GUI”, “display”, “server”, “network”, “learning tool”, and “data structure” and even basic, generic recitations that imply use of the computer such as storing information via servers would add little if anything to the abstract idea.
Similarly, reciting the abstract idea as software functions used to program a generic computer is not significant or meaningful: generic computers are programmed with software to perform various functions every day. A programmed generic computer is not a particular machine and by itself does not amount to an inventive concept because, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or more instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, as discussed in Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), is not enough to integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, it is not relevant that a human may perform a task differently from a computer. It is necessarily true that a human might apply an abstract idea in a different manner from a computer. What matters is the application, “stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it with a computer’” will not render an abstract idea non-abstract. Tranxition v. Lenovo, Nos. 2015-1907, -1941, -1958 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2016), slip op. at 7-8.
Here, the instructions entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the role of the generic computing elements recited in claims 1-10, is the same as the role of the computer in the claims considered by the Supreme Court in Alice, and the claim as whole amounts merely to an instruction to apply the abstract idea on the generic computerised system. Therefore, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (2106.04(d)). Under the MPEP 2106.05, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claims 1-10 do not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible.
With respect to the dependent claims do not recite anything that is found to render the abstract idea as being transformed into a patent eligible invention. The dependent claims are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not claim anything that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 2-7 and 9-10 are directed to further embellishments of the abstract idea in that they are directed to aspects of the central theme of the abstract idea identified above, as well as being directed to data processing and transmission which the courts have recognized as insignificant extra-solution activities (see at least M.P.E.P. 2106.05(g)). Data transmission is one of the most basic and fundamental uses there are for a generic computing device is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. The examiner takes the position that simply appending the judicial exception with such a well understood step of data transmission is not going to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20070255694 A1 to Wu in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220405503 A1 to Kaza et al. (hereinafter Kaza).
Referring to Claim 1, Wu discloses a computer-implemented and interactive real estate contract (document/sales agreement) generation and editing process (see Wu: Abstract and ¶ 43); Examiner notes that real estate contract is further addressed below) comprising the steps of:
providing a first electronic computing device of a first user and having an electronic display configured to display a digital graphical user interface (GUI) and a computer server (see at least Wu: ¶ 35 “the drafting system comprises a server 100 and client computers 130, all of them are in a network so that they are able to exchange data using common data transferring protocol”; see at least Wu: ¶ 37 “The client computer 130 is also operated by its own operating system, has a network interface 135, and is connected to the Internet 117 through a router 140. The client computer 130 also runs a browser or a HTML rendering application so that the client computer is able to access the server 100 and access its the web pages according to supported HTTP protocols”);
communicatively coupling the first electronic computing device of the first user to the computer server over a wireless communication network (see at least Wu: ¶ 37 “The client computer 130 is also operated by its own operating system, has a network interface 135, and is connected to the Internet 117 through a router 140. The client computer 130 also runs a browser or a HTML rendering application so that the client computer is able to access the server 100 and access its the web pages according to supported HTTP protocols”; see also Wu: ¶ 34 “the drafting system in a standalone version is just a working computer operated by required software”; see at least Wu: ¶ 35-36 “The server 100 is running an operating system 105 and is fully functional, has a network interface 110, and is connected to Internet 117 through a router 115.”); and
initiating a network-based remote easy contract formation session (see at least Wu: ¶ 105-107 “user can retrieve document components by using different document values including type, subtype and specie as retrieving criteria”; see at least Wu: ¶ 111-112 “retrieve documents components to be displayed on the user interface for the user to edit”; see also Wu: ¶ 172) that includes:
generating a plurality of independent and sequentially viewable windows on the GUI of the electronic display of the first electronic computing device, wherein each of the independent and sequentially viewable windows displaying at least one contract formation text therein and at least one digital data input field (see at least Wu: ¶ 113 “Retrieving document components according to the retrieving criteria entered by the user on a retrieving window of the user interface (FIG. 5). The user may choose to include all subject-equivalent components, or just use a short form, median form or a long form and numbering preference”; see also Wu: ¶ 118-123 “the user can search for other components using different retrieval criteria. In addition to the options the user can exercise at this stage, the user can edit the text of the retrieved components without any restriction on substance”; see also Wu: ¶ 172-174);
receiving alpha-numeric text corresponding to contract formation data within each of the plurality of digital data input fields from the first user (see at least Wu: ¶ 109-112: generating the document for editing; see also Wu: ¶ 123: introducing the user editing specific document information and agreement terms);
executing a software-based learning tool ascertaining the contract formation data and comparing it to a learning data structure to ascertain a match corresponding to a user understanding of the at least one contract formation text associated with each of the independent and sequentially viewable windows (see at least Wu: ¶ 137-138 “the program of the retrieving unit just allows the user to enter two or more retrieval requests containing the retrieving criteria, and the retrieving unit retrieves a substantially complete set of components for the first document according to the first request, and then retrieves the document components for the second document according to the second request”; see at least Wu: ¶ 140 “the retrieval order is determined by the document values and position values. The first set of document components is retrieved in responsive to the first set of document values. The second set of document components is retrieved in responsive to the second set of document values. Within a set of the document components, the individual document components appear by their position values. Therefore, both of the documents are in a proper order”; see also Wu: ¶ 173-175 “The text of the retrieved component is displayed in the center column. There is at least one component text for each component subject or title. However, plural components may be displayed to the user as mutually exclusive. They are referred to as subject-equivalent components. By way of example, there might be three warranty clauses to be chosen for a sale contract. The three clauses provide different warranty durations, contain different levels of details, and provide deferent level protection. The user interface displays the three subject-equivalent components. The user may choose only one that is to be incorporated in the final contract. If the user wants to combine two of them for further editing, the user has to copy them to the write-in area for editing”; see also Wu: ¶ 177 “The user may edit the components, subject to the minimum restrictions. In one preferred embodiment of the present invention, the text in the display window is editable so that the user may change and modify the text of the component”; see also Wu: ¶ 77 “those components are displayed in the display areas with mutually exclusive buttons. The user can choose one of them to be included in the final document”; see also Wu: ¶ 191-194) (Examiner notes that learning tool and learning data is addressed further below); and
generating, after completion of the plurality of independent and sequentially viewable windows and at a conclusion of the network-based remote easy contract formation session, a digital document with a plurality of independent paragraphs each having at least one fillable contract data field disposed therein and assigned to and filled in with at a portion of software-defined and software-selected contract formation data using the software-based learning tool to create a finalized digital document without any fillable contract data field therein (see also Wu: ¶ 34 “the drafting system in a standalone version is just a working computer operated by required software”; see at least Wu: ¶ 35-36 “The server 100 is running an operating system 105 and is fully functional, has a network interface 110, and is connected to Internet 117 through a router 115.”; see also Wu: Abstract “The system returns a presentable document after the user finally submits the edited document building blocks”; see also Wu: ¶ 62 “An optional behavior fields or variable. Behavior fields control the numbering of document components, restarting numbering, or stopping numbering components in the final document”; see also Wu: ¶ 77 “those components are displayed in the display areas with mutually exclusive buttons. The user can choose one of them to be included in the final document”; see also Wu: ¶ 96 “Document components are constructed in such a way that they allow the components to be numbered in the final document”; see also Wu: ¶ 173 “The text of the retrieved component is displayed in the center column. There is at least one component text for each component subject or title. However, plural components may be displayed to the user as mutually exclusive. They are referred to as subject-equivalent components. By way of example, there might be three warranty clauses to be chosen for a sale contract. The three clauses provide different warranty durations, contain different levels of details, and provide deferent level protection. The user interface displays the three subject-equivalent components. The user may choose only one that is to be incorporated in the final contract. If the user wants to combine two of them for further editing, the user has to copy them to the write-in area for editing”; see also Wu: ¶ 178 and 191-194) (Examiner notes that learning tool is addressed further below).
Wu specifically discusses that the system is a software define and software-based computer system and operating system (see at least Wu: ¶ 34 “the drafting system in a standalone version is just a working computer operated by required software”; see at least Wu: ¶ 35-36 “The server 100 is running an operating system 105 and is fully functional, has a network interface 110, and is connected to Internet 117 through a router 115.”).
Wu fails to explicitly state that the system employs a software based “learning tool” to be employed for document creation and that the document is for a real estate contract.
However, Kaza, which talks about “electronic document system uses an ensemble machine learning model (e.g., more than one machine learning model) to intelligently identify each component document for splitting the document package into each component document and to identify a document topic for each component document” (see at least Kaza: ¶ 5).
Kaza further teaches an electronic document system using a machine learning model to “analyzes each document package to identify the component documents and can further analyze each component document to identify a main idea (subject of or topic of) each component document. With the electronic document system performing the analyses and displaying the results to a user, the user will have a better understanding of the various components of the document package” (see at least Kaza: ¶ 27-28).
Kaza further teaches “utilizing an ensemble machine learning model, the electronic document system is more robust, trainable, and scalable” (see at least Kaza: ¶ 29).
Kaza further teaches “the electronic document system 110 utilizes an ensemble machine learning model to identify each component document in a document package and to identify a document topic for each component document” (see at least Kaza: ¶ 33).
Kaza teaches that the system “utilizes an ensemble machine learning model to identify component documents within a received document package and to identify a document topic (e.g., a main idea and/or a subject of) each component document for each identified component document” (see at least Kaza: ¶ 47).
Kaza teaches the model includes “a character identification engine 520, a first machine learning model 530, a partition engine 540, and a second machine learning model 550.” (see at least Kaza: ¶ 63; see also Kaza: ¶ 65-82: further details of use of the machine learning model to process and create documents).
Kaza teaches that the system involves creating a document related to real estate (see at least Kaza: ¶ 32 “the electronic document system 110 may enable the negotiation of a real estate document package that includes several component documents (e.g., a sales agreement, a term sheet, a policy sheet, a bank form, or other type of document related to the real estate document package). Similarly, the electronic document system 110 may allow a user 130 (e.g., the user 130B) to manage document packages received or imported from other sources, such as from another user 130 (e.g., the user 130A) or the document package source 140”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of employing a machine learning model to analyze documents to generate component within the document and generate a final document related to a real estate contract (as disclosed by Kaza) to the known method and system for automatically generating a document using sequentially displayed components wherein the user can edit and update the document to create a final document (as disclosed by Wu) to provide the user with an improved experience by increasing navigability and understandability of the document package. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of employing a machine learning model to analyze documents to generate component within the document and generate a final document related to a real estate contract because it would provide the user with an improved experience by increasing navigability and understandability of the document package (see Kaza ¶ 5).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of employing a machine learning model to analyze documents to generate component within the document and generate a final document related to a real estate contract (as disclosed by Kaza) to the known method and system for automatically generating a document using sequentially displayed components wherein the user can edit and update the document to create a final document (as disclosed by Wu) to provide the user with an improved experience by increasing navigability and understandability of the document package, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of employing a machine learning model to analyze documents to generate component within the document and generate a final document related to a real estate contract to the known method and system for automatically generating a document using sequentially displayed components wherein the user can edit and update the document to create a final document to provide the user with an improved experience by increasing navigability and understandability of the document package). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Referring to Claim 2, the combination of Wu and Kaza teaches the computer-implemented process according to claim 1, including wherein the plurality of digital data input fields are each identified by an assigned array index on an array data structure (see at least Wu: ¶ 55-70 “A field or variable for identifying the component. This field is referred to as component ID and its value is referred to as component ID value. Within document database, the ID value of any of the document components is unique. However, the document ID field may be replaced by another unique id field or a combination of plural other fields…the program finishes processing the texts for all components, it also creates a small index table, which contains P1 and P2 for each of the component IDs. Then, the program writes the buffer text into a database file”; see also Wu: ¶ 81 “the document database also has plural help texts, each for one of the document components. The rules for storing component texts are applicable to help text except that Q1 and Q2 are used in place of P1 and P2. The other difference is that variable name-definition pairs may be line-terminated. The component text and the help text may be associated by a common index number such as record id”; see also Wu: ¶ 85-87; see also Wu: ¶ 109 “ey words in the components texts may be indexed and saved in index files”; see also Wu: ¶ 149 “The retrieval system also gets help text for each of the components. Since the text of a component and the help text may be associated by the database record number or index number, it is easy to retrieve the help text.”; see also Wu: ¶ 277-286).
Referring to Claim 3, the combination of Wu and Kaza teaches the computer-implemented process according to claim 1, including wherein the plurality of digital data input fields each have a GUI informational icon disposed proximal to each of the plurality of digital data input fields, the GUI informational icon having informational text included therein and displaying the informational text on the electronic display of the first computing device upon selectively modulating the GUI informational icon (see also Wu: ¶ 173-175 “The text of the retrieved component is displayed in the center column. There is at least one component text for each component subject or title. However, plural components may be displayed to the user as mutually exclusive. They are referred to as subject-equivalent components. By way of example, there might be three warranty clauses to be chosen for a sale contract. The three clauses provide different warranty durations, contain different levels of details, and provide deferent level protection. The user interface displays the three subject-equivalent components. The user may choose only one that is to be incorporated in the final contract. If the user wants to combine two of them for further editing, the user has to copy them to the write-in area for editing”; see also Wu: ¶ 177 “The user may edit the components, subject to the minimum restrictions. In one preferred embodiment of the present invention, the text in the display window is editable so that the user may change and modify the text of the component”; see also Wu: ¶ 77 “those components are displayed in the display areas with mutually exclusive buttons. The user can choose one of them to be included in the final document”).
Referring to Claim 4, the combination of Wu and Kaza teaches the computer-implemented process according to claim 1, wherein the network-based remote easy contract formation session further comprises: generating a plurality of GUI icons each corresponding to a type of real estate transaction the first user is seeking to prepare (see at least Kaza: ¶ 32 “the electronic document system 110 may enable the negotiation of a real estate document package that includes several component documents (e.g., a sales agreement, a term sheet, a policy sheet, a bank form, or other type of document related to the real estate document package). Similarly, the electronic document system 110 may allow a user 130 (e.g., the user 130B) to manage document packages received or imported from other sources, such as from another user 130 (e.g., the user 130A) or the document package source 140”; see also Kaza: ¶ 30, 32, 42-43, and 50-51: document identification using type of document; see also Wu: ¶ 53-54 “the first type may be referred to as substantive components while the second type may be referred to as formality components”; see also Wu: ¶ 64-65 “{ID, position fields N1, N2 . . . Nn, document type fields V1, V2 . . . Vn, component text location fields P1, P2, help text locations Q1, Q2, numbering directive R, format directive F . . . . }”; see also Wu: ¶ 73 “or the first field, e.g., the type field, the following meanings may be assigned: 1=contract, 2=lease, 3=will and 4=trust . . . The values in the second field may indicate specific type or subtype of documents. For example, for the document components with type value of 1 (e.g., a contract), the subtype values may have the following meanings: 1=sale of goods, 2=service agreement, 3=sale of intangible goods, 4=sale of special goods . . . It is possible to use additional document fields for further classifying document components”; see also Wu: ¶ 99-100).
Referring to Claim 5, the combination of Wu and Kaza teaches the computer-implemented process according to claim 1, wherein: the first electronic computing device of the first user is geographically located at a different physical building location than the computer server (see at least Wu: ¶ 35 “the drafting system comprises a server 100 and client computers 130, all of them are in a network so that they are able to exchange data using common data transferring protocol”; see at least Wu: ¶ 37 “The client computer 130 is also operated by its own operating system, has a network interface 135, and is connected to the Internet 117 through a router 140. The client computer 130 also runs a browser or a HTML rendering application so that the client computer is able to access the server 100 and access its the web pages according to supported HTTP protocols”).
Referring to Claim 6, the combination of Wu and Kaza teaches the computer-implemented process according to claim 1, further comprising: registering the first user by associating the first user to a user account resident on the computer server before generating the independent and sequentially viewable windows (see at least Kaza: ¶ 36-37 “Each user 130 can be associated with a username, email address, user account, or other identifier that can be used by the electronic document system 110 to identify the user 130 and to control the ability of the user 130 to view, modify, or otherwise interact with document packages and/or component documents managed by the electronic document system 110”).
Referring to Claim 7, the combination of Wu and Kaza teaches the computer-implemented process according to claim 1, further comprising: generating the finalized digital document without filable contract data field therein and that is transferrable from the electronic display of the first computing device to a second computing device of a second user over the wireless communication network (see also Wu: Abstract “The system returns a presentable document after the user finally submits the edited document building blocks”; see also Wu: ¶ 62 “An optional behavior fields or variable. Behavior fields control the numbering of document components, restarting numbering, or stopping numbering components in the final document”; see also Wu: ¶ 77 “those components are displayed in the display areas with mutually exclusive buttons. The user can choose one of them to be included in the final document”; see also Wu: ¶ 96 “Document components are constructed in such a way that they allow the components to be numbered in the final document”; see also Wu: ¶ 173 “The text of the retrieved component is displayed in the center column. There is at least one component text for each component subject or title. However, plural components may be displayed to the user as mutually exclusive. They are referred to as subject-equivalent components. By way of example, there might be three warranty clauses to be chosen for a sale contract. The three clauses provide different warranty durations, contain different levels of details, and provide deferent level protection. The user interface displays the three subject-equivalent components. The user may choose only one that is to be incorporated in the final contract. If the user wants to combine two of them for further editing, the user has to copy them to the write-in area for editing”; see also Wu: ¶ 178 and 191-194).
Referring to Claim 8, Wu discloses a computer-implemented and interactive real estate contract (document/sales agreement) generation and editing process (see Wu: Abstract and ¶ 43); Examiner notes that real estate contract is further addressed below) comprising the steps of:
providing a first electronic computing device of a first user and having an electronic display configured to display a digital graphical user interface (GUI) and a computer server (see at least Wu: ¶ 35 “the drafting system comprises a server 100 and client computers 130, all of them are in a network so that they are able to exchange data using common data transferring protocol”; see at least Wu: ¶ 37 “The client computer 130 is also operated by its own operating system, has a network interface 135, and is connected to the Internet 117 through a router 140. The client computer 130 also runs a browser or a HTML rendering application so that the client computer is able to access the server 100 and access its the web pages according to supported HTTP protocols”);
communicatively coupling the first electronic computing device of the first user to the computer server over a wireless communication network (see at least Wu: ¶ 37 “The client computer 130 is also operated by its own operating system, has a network interface 135, and is connected to the Internet 117 through a router 140. The client computer 130 also runs a browser or a HTML rendering application so that the client computer is able to access the server 100 and access its the web pages according to supported HTTP protocols”; see also Wu: ¶ 34 “the drafting system in a standalone version is just a working computer operated by required software”; see at least Wu: ¶ 35-36 “The server 100 is running an operating system 105 and is fully functional, has a network interface 110, and is connected to Internet 117 through a router 115.”); and
initiating a network-based remote easy contract formation session (see at least Wu: ¶ 105-107 “user can retrieve document components by using different document values including type, subtype and specie as retrieving criteria”; see at least Wu: ¶ 111-112 “retrieve documents components to be displayed on the user interface for the user to edit”; see also Wu: ¶ 172) that includes:
generating a plurality of independent and sequentially viewable windows on the GUI of the electronic display of the first electronic computing device, wherein each of the independent and sequentially viewable windows displaying at least one contract formation text therein and at least one digital data input field identified by an assigned array index on an array data structure (see at least Wu: ¶ 113 “Retrieving document components according to the retrieving criteria entered by the user on a retrieving window of the user interface (FIG. 5). The user may choose to include all subject-equivalent components, or just use a short form, median form or a long form and numbering preference”; see also Wu: ¶ 118-123 “the user can search for other components using different retrieval criteria. In addition to the options the user can exercise at this stage, the user can edit the text of the retrieved components without any restriction on substance”; see also Wu: ¶ 172-174; see at least Wu: ¶ 55-70 “A field or variable for identifying the component. This field is referred to as component ID and its value is referred to as component ID value. Within document database, the ID value of any of the document components is unique. However, the document ID field may be replaced by another unique id field or a combination of plural other fields…the program finishes processing the texts for all components, it also creates a small index table, which contains P1 and P2 for each of the component IDs. Then, the program writes the buffer text into a database file”; see also Wu: ¶ 81 “the document database also has plural help texts, each for one of the document components. The rules for storing component texts are applicable to help text except that Q1 and Q2 are used in place of P1 and P2. The other difference is that variable name-definition pairs may be line-terminated. The component text and the help text may be associated by a common index number such as record id”; see also Wu: ¶ 85-87; see also Wu: ¶ 109 “ey words in the components texts may be indexed and saved in index files”; see also Wu: ¶ 149 “The retrieval system also gets help text for each of the components. Since the text of a component and the help text may be associated by the database record number or index number, it is easy to retrieve the help text.”; see also Wu: ¶ 277-286);
receiving alpha-numeric text corresponding to contract formation data within each of the plurality of digital data input fields from the first user (see at least Wu: ¶ 109-112: generating the document for editing; see also Wu: ¶ 123: introducing the user editing specific document information and agreement terms); and
generating, after completion of the plurality of independent and sequentially viewable windows and at a conclusion of the network-based remote easy contract formation session, a digital document with a plurality of independent preformed paragraphs each having at least one fillable contract data field disposed therein and assigned to, using the array data structure with the assigned array index, and filled in with contract formation data received within each of the plurality of digital data input fields from the first use