DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 may be characterized as a method of generating and updating a template based on multiple documents. This claim has been evaluated under the Alice/Mayo subject matter eligibility test as provided in MPEP § 2106.
I. Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea.
Courts have defined a mental process to include both concepts that may be performed entirely in the human mind and concepts that require a human to employ a physical aid (e.g., a pen and paper or slide rule). MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Id.
The following limitations encompass mental processes:
“generating … a first template based on a plurality of … documents, the first template defining a first structural arrangement of one or more portions extracted from the plurality of … documents and including the one or more portions;”
“receiving … an update to at least one portion in the one or more portions;” and
“generating … a second template based on the first template and the update to the at least one portion, the second template defining a second structural arrangement of the one or more portions determined based on the first structural arrangement and the update to the at least one portion.”
The above limitations are drawn to authoring and updating templates based on multiple documents. These activities may be performed by a human with, for example, the aid of a pen and paper. For example, an attorney may author a sales contract form based on analyzing actual sales contracts. The attorney may revise the form over time (e.g., as contract law evolves).
II. Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Integration into a practical application should be determined by: “(1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the [listed] considerations.” MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II) (emphasis added).
The claim recites the following additional elements:
“at least one processor;”
“electronic documents;”
“a machine learning model;” and
“storing … an object model representative of at least one of: the first template, the second template, and a difference between the first template and the second template.”
A. The invention does not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology.
Neither the claim nor the specification asserts that the invention improves upon the conventional functioning of a computer, conventional technology, or technological processes. Rather, the claim merely invokes a computer as a tool.
B. A processor, electronic documents, a machine learning model, and an object model are not particular machines.
A general-purpose computer that applies an abstract idea by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I). The claim recites the additional elements of performing the claimed processes using a processor, electronic documents, a machine learning model, and an object model. These are generic computer technologies. Accordingly, the recited abstract idea is not applied with, or by use of, a particular machine.
C. Storing an object model representation is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
The recitation of an insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The claim recites the additional element of “storing … an object model representative of at least one of: the first template, the second template, and a difference between the first template and the second template.” Storing an object model representation of data is an insignificant post-solution activity related to mere data output. This activity is analogous to the storage of documents (e.g., in filing cabinets) in the physical world.
D. The relevant considerations indicate that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
When evaluated as a whole, the above-identified considerations indicate that the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
III. Step 2B: The claim does not recite an additional element that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Whether a claim recites significantly more than an abstract idea should be determined by: (1) identifying any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and (2) evaluating those additional elements, individually and in combination, with respect to the relevant considerations. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
First, as discussed above, the claimed invention does not improve the functioning of a computer. Second, as discussed above, the recited additional elements constitute generic computer technologies. Third, as discussed above, storing an object model representation is an insignificant extra-solution activity related to mere data output. Additionally, this function is recited at a high-level of generality. Thus, individually, the recited additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Finally, the combined additional elements do not result in a non-conventional or non-generic arrangement. Rather, the combined additional elements merely embody conventional data processing and data output functions performed by a generic computer.
Accordingly, when evaluated individually and in combination, the above-identified considerations indicate that the recited additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
IV. Conclusion: Ineligible
The claim has been found to be directed to an abstract idea without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not qualify as patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2, which depends on claim 1, is directed to using document type information to generate a template. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3, which depends on claim 1, is directed to using a historical version of a document to generate a template. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4, which depends on claim 1, is directed to storing an updated portion of a document. This function is merely insignificant post-solution activity. Additionally, this function is recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, the abstract idea neither is integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5, which depends on claim 1, is directed to storing an updated portion of a document and a structural difference. This function is merely insignificant post-solution activity. Additionally, this function is recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, the abstract idea neither is integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6, which depends on claim 5, is directed to storing a structural difference within a template. This function is merely insignificant post-solution activity. Additionally, this function is recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, the abstract idea neither is integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7, which depends on claim 1, is directed to generating a document using a selected a template. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8, which depends on claim 1, is directed to using an agreement, legal document, and/or non-legal document to generate a template. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9, which depends on claim 1, is directed to updating a template based on feedback. This limitation encompasses a mental process. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10, which depends on claim 1, is directed to using large language model (LLM) and/or generative AI model. As LLMs and generative AI models are generic computer technologies, the abstract idea is neither integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is directed to a system that substantially implements the same abstract ideas of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is subject matter ineligible for substantially the same reasons indicated above. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208, 226-27 (2014). Nevertheless, unlike claim 1, the system does not store an object model representation. Rather, the claim recites the additional element of “present[ing] at least one of the first and second templates on a graphical user interface of at least one computing device.” The user interface is recited at a high-level of generality. The recitation of a generic user interface neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331-1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12, which depends on claim 11, is directed to storing an object model representation of data. This action is merely insignificant post-solution activity. Additionally, this action is recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, the abstract idea neither is integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, which depend on claim 11, are rejected for substantially the same reasons indicated above for corresponding claims 4, 5, 6, 2, 3, and 7, respectively.
Claim 19 is directed to instructions stored in a medium that substantially implements the same abstract ideas of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is subject matter ineligible for substantially the same reasons indicated above. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208, 226-27 (2014).
Additionally, the claim recites “receiv[ing] a request to generate an electronic document and retrieve the object model; select[ing] one of: the first template and the second template.” The above limitations are drawn to selecting a template on request. This activity may be performed by a human. For example, an attorney may use his judgment to select a form form for a sales contract based on a request received from a client.
Finaly, the claim recites the additional element of “generat[ing], based on the selecting, the electronic document using the retrieved object model.” This action is merely insignificant post-solution activity and is the natural result of generating a template. Additionally, this action is recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, the abstract idea neither is integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20, which depends on claim 19, is rejected for substantially the same reasons indicated above for corresponding claim 9.
Conclusion
Although particular portions of the prior art may have been cited in support of the rejections, the specified citations are merely representative of the teachings. Other passages and figures in the cited prior art may apply. Accordingly, Applicant should consider the entirety of the cited prior art for potentially teaching all or part of the claims.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Eshghi et al., US 2022/0108065 A1, discloses using machine learning to generate a template from a corpus of documents.
Religa et al., US 11,775,747 B1, discloses using a machine learning model to generate a template based on a page of a document.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Asher D Kells whose telephone number is (571)270-7729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 4 p.m..
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
Asher D. Kells
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/Asher D Kells/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171