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 .
The prior 35 § USC 112 rejection for claim 21 is withdrawn in view of applicant amendment.
The following rejections remain rejected:
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9-11 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marsh et al (US Application: US 20210256084, published: Aug. 19, 2021, filed: Feb. 12, 2021).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 13 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh et al (US Application: US 20210256084, published: Aug. 19, 2021, filed: Feb. 12, 2021) in view of Zhang et al (US Application: US 20230040974, published: Feb. 9, 2023, filed: Aug. 5, 2022).
Claim(s) 5-8 and 15-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh et al (US Application: US 20210256084, published: Aug. 19, 2021, filed: Feb. 12, 2021) in view of Zhang et al (US Application: US 20230040974, published: Feb. 9, 2023, filed: Aug. 5, 2022) in view of Williamson et al (US Application: US 2018/0232528, published: Aug. 16, 2018, filed: Feb. 9, 2018).
Claim(s) 12 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh et al (US Application: US 20210256084, published: Aug. 19, 2021, filed: Feb. 12, 2021) in view of Zhu et al (US Application: US 2013/0326346, published: Dec. 5, 2013, filed: Aug. 17, 2012)
Claim(s) 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh et al (US Application: US 20210256084, published: Aug. 19, 2021, filed: Feb. 12, 2021) in view of Wu et al (US Application: US 2007/0118518, published: May 24, 2007, filed: May 4, 2006).
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.
101 Analysis for Claim 1
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites the following limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind).
A method for automatically structuring textual information of a meeting note, the method comprising: accessing text of a meeting note; processing the text using an AI-driven translator to identify business metrics of the text; after the processing, parsing the text into a structured format comprising a plurality of metrics; and displaying the plurality of metrics on an on-screen graphical user interface rendered on a display device, wherein the on-screen graphical user interface automatically updates the plurality of metrics when new meeting notes are submitted and processed.
As a note, steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
With respect to the particular limitations (that were bolded above), these steps can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. For example, the particular limitations encompass 1) evaluating meeting note information and making a judgement on structure of the meeting note information, and writing down the judged structure meeting text information, 2) evaluating the meeting text using translation step(s) to identify company metrics, 3) evaluating the text and making a judgement to write structure format content having a plurality of metrics.
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
With regards to the following additional elements of ‘accessing text of a meeting note’, these additional elements are considered to amount to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). See MPEP 2106.05 and Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Thus, the additional elements to not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regards to the following elements ‘processing using an AI driven translator …; … displaying the plurality of metrics on an on-screen graphical user interface rendered on a display device …’, these elements are considered to encompass a generic computer (and its components/functions) that are used as a tool to perform generic computer functions/operations such that they amount to no more than mere instructions/operations (i.e. application program having translation instructions) to apply the exception using the generic computer (electronic apparatus). Applying an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally these elements do not improve how information is displayed, as they can be interpreted to encompass merely repeating the display of metrics upon obtaining/referencing additional data (new meeting notes).
101 Analysis Step 2B:
With regards to the following additional elements of ‘accessing text of a meeting note’, , as discussed above in step 2A, prong two, these elements are considered to amount to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (such as data gathering) have been found by the courts to be insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ than the judicial exception.
With regards to the following additional elements of ‘processing using an AI driven translator …; … displaying the plurality of metrics on an on-screen graphical user interface rendered on a display device …’ , as discussed above in step 2A, prong two, amounts to no more than elements that are considered to encompass a generic computer (and its components/functions) that are used as a tool to perform generic computer functions/operations. The courts have found ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions (to implement /execute the translation instructions) to implement an abstract idea on a computer, as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ than the judicial exception. Furthermore, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information … for collection, analysis , and display , is considered ‘selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (an insignificant extra solution activity). The courts have found these types of limitations to be insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claims 2-10
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims that have additional elements are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example 1) for the dependent claims that recite use of ‘AI’; as discussed above, reciting ‘AI’ is considered generally linking the judicial exception to a technological area, 2) for the dependent claims that recite ‘receiving’ , ‘acquiring’ , they were already explained in the rejection of claim 1 to be insignificant extra solution activity, 3) for the dependent claims that recite ‘fine tuning’, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality and can be interpreted to encompass mental steps of assessing and making a judgement to update/record/write data based on assessment.
101 Analysis for Claim 11
With regards to claim 11, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1.
101 Analysis for claims 12-19
Dependent claim(s) 12-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims that have additional elements are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See the rejections of claims 2-10 above for examples of how these claims also fail to be considered as patent eligible.
101 Analysis for Claim 20
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 20 recites the following limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind).
A computer system, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory is operable to store company metrics, wherein the processor is operable to perform a process of structuring textual information of a meeting note to generate structured meeting note information, the method comprising: accessing text of the meeting note entered by a user; processing the text using an AI-driven translator to identify company metrics of the text; and after processing, parsing the text into a structured format comprising a plurality of metrics.
As a note, steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
With respect to the particular limitations (that were bolded above), these steps can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. For example, the particular limitations encompass 1) evaluating meeting note information and making a judgement on structure of the meeting note information, and writing down the judged structure meeting text information, 2) evaluating the meeting text using translation step(s) to identify company metrics, 3) evaluating the text and making a judgement to write structure format content having a plurality of metrics.
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
With regards to the following additional elements of ‘… A computer system, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory is operable to store company metrics, wherein the processor is operable to …processing …AI driven translator’, these elements are considered to encompass a generic computer (and its components/functions) that are used as a tool to perform generic computer functions/operations such that they amount to no more than mere instructions/operations (i.e. application program having translation instructions) to apply the exception using the generic computer (electronic apparatus). Applying an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With regards to the additional elements of ‘accessing text of the meeting note entered by a user’, these elements are considered to amount to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). See MPEP 2106.05 and Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Thus, the additional elements to not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regards to ‘…using an AI-driven translator …’ these additional elements are merely reciting the field of use ‘AI-driven’ , and generally link the use of a judicial exception to the particular field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception … cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
101 Analysis Step 2B:
With regards to the following additional elements of ‘… A computer system, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory is operable to store company metrics, wherein the processor is operable to …processing … AI driven translator’’, as discussed above in step 2A, prong two, amounts to no more than elements that are considered to encompass a generic computer (and its components/functions) that are used as a tool to perform generic computer functions/operations. The courts have found ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions (to implement /execute the translation instructions) to implement an abstract idea on a computer, as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ than the judicial exception.
With regards to ‘accessing text of the meeting note entered by a user’, as discussed above in step 2A, prong two, these elements are considered to amount to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (such as data gathering) have been found by the courts to be insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ than the judicial exception.
With regards to ‘…using an AI-driven translator …’, as explained in step 2A, prong two, these elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9-11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marsh et al (US Application: US 20210256084, published: Aug. 19, 2021, filed: Feb. 12, 2021).
With regards to claim 1, Marsh et al teaches a method (Fig. 7, paragraph 0169: a computer implemented method having a processor and memory are implemented) for automatically structuring textual information of a meeting note, the method comprising:
accessing text of a meeting note (Fig. 9 and Fig. 9 (cont) of sheet 9 and sheet 10: meeting engagements and/or comments are interpreted as notes, and the contents of the engagements and/or comments are accessed in response to user request/search);
processing the text using an AI-driven translator to identify business metrics of the text (Fig. 9 (cont) of sheet 10, paragraphs 0103, 0119, 0120, 0145: the text of the engagements and/or transcripts of a call can be processed to identify selected information. The selected information are associated with data types that include metric identifiers and/or quantitative data);
after the processing, parsing the text into a structured format comprising a plurality of metrics (paragraph 0120, 0143, 0184: the information is parsed and identified for referencing in a structured organization); and
displaying the plurality of metrics on an on-screen graphical user interface rendered on a display device (paragraph 0143, 0184: the metrics are represented as identifiers and can be accessed/referenced, and presented to the user via one or more presentation result(s) interfaces such as a navigation panel, punch-card interface, themes , timeline ), wherein the on-screen graphical user interface automatically updates the plurality of metrics when new meeting notes are submitted and processed (paragraph 0148, 0184, : new transcripts are processed and subsequently can be used as a basis for presenting metrics data over time).
With regards to claim 2. The method of Claim 1, Marsh et al teaches wherein the text comprises information acquired during a meeting with a company, wherein the text is manually entered by a user, and wherein the business metrics comprise metrics associated with the company (paragraphs 143, 0145 and 0148: financial/business metrics of a particular company are acquired and presented in one or more interface such as a themes interface ) .
With regards to claim 9. The method of Claim 1, Marsh et al teaches wherein the structured format comprises a row and column format (Fig. 20: the data extracted can be structured and rendered via row and column format) .
With regards to claim 10. The method of Claim 1, Marsh et al teaches wherein the plurality of metrics comprise at least one of: revenue (paragraph 0143: a revenue metric type is implemented); cash on hand; and burn rate.
With regards to claim 11, Marsh et al teaches A method for automatically structuring textual information of a company update email, the method comprising:
accessing text of a company update email (paragraphs 0084, 0088, 0148 and 0184, Fig 6: engagements include transcripts and the engagements can be ongoing in a conversation (updated transcript) or over time. It is noted that the engagements/transcripts also include addressable messages such as chat, or ‘mail’ (which are interpreted to encompass a type of email)) );
forwarding the company update email to a designated email address (paragraphs 0084 and 0088: the message (email) can be addressed to a specific individual in an conversation/engagement);
receiving the company update email at the designated email address (paragraphs 0084 and 0088: the message can be received at the defined address for an individual);
processing the text using an AI-driven translator to identify business metrics of the text (Fig. 9 (cont) of sheet 10, paragraphs 0103, 0119, 0120, 0145, 0148 and 0184: the text of the ongoing engagements and/or transcripts can be processed to identify selected information. The selected information are associated with data types that include metric identifiers and/or quantitative data);
after processing, parsing the text into a structured format comprising a plurality of metrics (paragraph 0120, 0143, 0184: the information is parsed and identified for referencing in a structured organization); and
displaying the plurality of metrics on an on-screen graphical user interface rendered on a display device (paragraph 0143, 0184: the metrics are represented as identifiers and can be accessed/referenced, and presented to the user via one or more presentation result(s) interfaces such as a navigation panel, punch-card interface, themes , timeline), wherein the on-screen graphical user interface automatically updates the plurality of metrics when new company update emails are received and processed (paragraph 0148, 0184, : new transcripts are processed and subsequently can be used as a basis for presenting metrics data over time).
With regards to claim 20, Marsh et al teaches a computer system, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory is operable to store company metrics, wherein the processor is operable to perform a process of structuring textual information of a meeting note to generate structured meeting note information, the method comprising: accessing text of the meeting note entered by a user; processing the text using an AI-driven translator to identify company metrics of the text; and after processing, parsing the text into a structured format comprising a plurality of metrics, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh et al (US Application: US 20210256084, published: Aug. 19, 2021, filed: Feb. 12, 2021) in view of Zhang et al (US Application: US 20230040974, published: Feb. 9, 2023, filed: Aug. 5, 2022).
With regards to claim 3. The method of Claim 1, Marsh et al teaches wherein the text comprises identification information that identifies a particular company … information from the text of the meeting note … the text is processed (paragraphs 143 and 0148: financial/business metrics of a particular company are acquired and presented in an interface) …
However Marsh et al does not expressly teach … and further comprising redacting the identification information from the text … the text is processed.
Yet Zhang et al teaches … and further comprising redacting the identification information from the text … the text is processed (paragraph 0012: information is identified for removal (such as sensitive info) from text before the entire text is processed for subsequent generation. The user can also review and make corrections to redacted information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Marsh et al’s ability to process company text of a meeting/transcript (or email), such that the company associated text could have undergone an initial redaction and user review process, before performing subsequent processing, as taught by Zhang et al. The combination would have allowed Marsh et al to have implemented a way to obscure sensitive data while reducing developer overhead by reducing the need to understand visual formatting.
With regards to claim 4. The method of Claim 1, the combination of Marsh et al and Zhang et al teaches further comprising: receiving error correction input from a user to correct an error of the text after the processing; and replacing an item of the text using the error correction input to correct the error, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3 (as explained Marsh et al and Zhang et al was combined to teach that an initial redaction process is implemented that allows for user input to correct redacted data), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 13. The method of Claim 11, Marsh et al teaches wherein the text comprises identity information that identifies a particular company (paragraphs 143 and 0148: financial/business metrics of a particular company are acquired and presented in an interface). Additionally, Marsh et al and Zhang et al teaches … and further comprising redacting identity information from the text of the company update email before the text is processed, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 14. The method of Claim 11, Marsh et al and Zhang et al teaches further comprising: receiving error correction input from a user to correct an error of the text after the processing; and replacing an item of the text with the error correction input to correct the error, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5-8 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh et al (US Application: US 20210256084, published: Aug. 19, 2021, filed: Feb. 12, 2021) in view of Zhang et al (US Application: US 20230040974, published: Feb. 9, 2023, filed: Aug. 5, 2022) in view of Williamson et al (US Application: US 2018/0232528, published: Aug. 16, 2018, filed: Feb. 9, 2018).
With regards to claim 5. The method of Claim 4, the combination of Marsh et al and Zhang et al teaches … the error correction input (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4), and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … further comprising fine tuning the AI-driven translator using the error correction input.
Yet Williamson et al teaches … further comprising fine tuning the AI-driven translator using the error correction input (paragraph 0078: the user input includes feedback to tune AI parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Marsh et al and Zhang et al’s ability to process a user’s error correction input of redacted company text-content using an AI, such that the user’s input further includes feedback data to tune the AI parameters, as taught by Williamson et al. The combination would have allowed efficiently and dynamically adapted how sensitive data is discovered.
With regards to claim 6. The method of Claim 5, the combination of Marsh et al, Zhang et al and Williamson teaches wherein the AI-driven translator comprises a machine learning (ML) algorithm (Marsh et al , paragraph 0071: a machine learning algorithm/model is employed, and as explained in the rejection of claim 5, Marsh et al, Zhang et al and Williamson teaches the AI can be tuned.).
With regards to claim 7. The method of Claim 6, the combination of Marsh et al, Zhang et al and Williamson teaches further comprising fine tuning the ML algorithm using company data and error correction data (Marsh teaches in paragraph 0051 and 0079: company data is used to help train the machine learning component (‘compass AI’). Additionally, as explained in the rejection of claim 5, Marsh et al, Zhang et al and Williamson teaches the company associated error correction data with user feedback is processed to tune the AI algorithm)
With regards to claim 8. The method of Claim 6, the combination of Marsh et al, Zhang et al and Williamson teaches further comprising fine tuning the ML algorithm using [user supplied input data], as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5 and 6. The examiner respectfully points out the type of data being an ‘upcoming fundraising round information’ is nonfunctional descriptive material which does not affect the functionality of the limitation, and thus this limitation does not distinguish from the cited prior art (see MPEP 2112.01). Nevertheless, the examiner points out that since the prior cited art already teaches applying various data to fine tune the algorithm, using alternative content (such as upcoming fundraising round information) is well known in the art and the examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE of this fact. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Marsh et al, Zhang et al and Williamson’s ability to accept data to train the AI , such that additional /alternate data could have been provided, as well known in the art. The combination would have allowed the machine learning model to have flexibly recognized additional data patterns.
With regards to claim 15. The method of Claim 14, the combination of Marsh et al, Zhang et al and Williamson teaches further comprising fine tuning the AI-driven translator using the error correction input, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 16. The method of Claim 15, the combination of Marsh et al, Zhang et al and Williamson teaches wherein the AI-driven translator comprises a machine learning algorithm (ML) , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 6, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 17. The method of Claim 16, the combination of Marsh et al, Zhang et al and Williamson teaches further comprising fine tuning the ML algorithm using company data and error correction data, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 18. The method of Claim 16, the combination of Marsh et al, Zhang et al and Williamson teaches further comprising fine tuning the ML algorithm using upcoming fundraising round information pertaining to a company, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 8, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh et al (US Application: US 20210256084, published: Aug. 19, 2021, filed: Feb. 12, 2021) in view of Zhu et al (US Application: US 2013/0326346, published: Dec. 5, 2013, filed: Aug. 17, 2012)
With regards to claim 12. The method of Claim 11, Marsh et al teaches further comprising sending an email … the plurality of metrics (paragraph 0088: an email can be sent to an identified/addressable user in regards to metric associated data).
However Marsh et al does not expressly teach … comprising a link to the plurality of metrics.
Yet Zhu et al teaches … comprising a link to the plurality of metrics (paragraph 0010 and claim 10 of Zhu et al: content is analyzed for content and metrics (such as voting info) and the result of analysis is provided in an email with a link to a portal to access the result ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Marsh et al’s ability to analyze communication/engagement for metric content, such that the result of the analysis could be provided through an email with a link to access the result(s), as taught by Zhu et al. The combination would have efficiently provided a summary to users.
With regards to claim 19. The method of Claim 12, Marsh et al teaches wherein the accessing text of a company update email comprises accessing text of an email attachment of the company update email (paragraph 0084: a message directed to an address can include an attachment).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh et al (US Application: US 20210256084, published: Aug. 19, 2021, filed: Feb. 12, 2021) in view of Wu et al (US Application: US 2007/0118518, published: May 24, 2007, filed: May 4, 2006).
With regards to claim 21. The computer system of Claim 20, Marsh et al teaches further comprising a display device coupled to the processor, wherein the display device is operable to render an on-screen graphical user interface (GUI) according to instructions received from the processor, wherein the on-screen GUI comprises: a first on-screen area operable to display the textual information of the meeting note entered by the user (Fig 6: a display area having an conversation /engagement is displayed having text/note data); and a second on-screen area operable to display structured meeting note information comprising company metrics corresponding to the textual information, wherein interacting with an item of the textual information causes a corresponding item of the structured meeting note information (Fig. 6: a second on screen area encompasses an engagement area to access the engagement(s), which displays the selected engagement).
However Marsh et al does not expressly teach … a corresponding item … to be highlighted.
Yet Wu et al teaches … a corresponding item … to be highlighted (Fig. 3, 0064: content is analyzed and creates an output document having terms/items that are highlighted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Marsh et al’s ability to identify relevant information/items to retrieve and display, such that relevant item information is further highlighted to indicate particular relevance/emphasis, as taught by Wu et al. The combination would have allowed Marsh et al to have allowed a user to easily identify relevant terms / content based upon existing content (Wu et al, paragraph 0016).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the 101 rejections, the applicant first argues with respect to claim 1, that “the claimed elements do not fall within the categories of evaluation, judgement …”, however does not dispute the existing mapping that was already applied in bold for aspects that are directed to a mental process.
The applicant argues with regards to prong two, the applicant argues that the additional elements reflect an improvement in the function of a computer and attempts to correlate Enfish for improving a way a computer stores and parses unstructured data into a structured format with the current instant claimed invention for “processing the text using a AI driven translator to identify business metrics of the text” and “parsing the text into a structured format comprises a plurality of metrics”. However, this argument is not persuasive since the parsing recited in the claim can be performed via the mind for evaluating information/data and making a judgement for structured data format based on the evaluation. Furthermore, the claim recites the translator in a high level of generality and the term AI does not impart any improvement can be interpreted as a label associated with a computer/program, and also reciting a field for which the judicial exception is performed (AI). The courts have identified that these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See the following below a listing of the types of additional elements that the courts have identified to be insufficient to integrate the judicial exception:
• “Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)”
• “Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h)”.
It is noted that the applicant further argues that the improvement in Enfish for an improved way to ‘retrieve data in memory in combination with the specific data structure’ is equivalent to applicant’s claimed invention [and] “the structured format of the data enables the method to perform the limitation of “displaying the plurality of metrics …wherein the on-screen graphical user interface automatically updates the plurality of metrics when new meeting notes are submitted and processed”. However this argument is not persuasive since the claims do not recite a specific aspect of retrieval other than reciting at a high level of generality that information is obtained/selected upon receipt of information (notes). As explained in the prior and current office action, obtaining /referencing additional data for display is considered a type of data selection/gathering (obtaining information and presenting the information) See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and also additionally see Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, since the additional elements correlate to insignificant extra solution activity, they are not considered as integrating the judicial exception into a practical application nor are they considered improvements as they nominally recite acts of referencing data and displaying information.
The applicant further argues the claim’s limitation for ‘’displaying the plurality of metrics on an on screen graphical user interface rendered on a display, wherein the on-screen graphical user interface automatically updates the plurality of metrics when new meeting notes are submitted and processed’ is analogous to example 42 , for which the office found to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. However the applicant’s argument is not persuasive since example 42 recites a specific method of content standardization in a networked environment such that information is distributed and routed to all users based on an update by one of the users. In contrast, the applicant’s current claim is not related to how information is routed to specific users in response to changes made by one of the users, and rather nominally recites a structured format (which is not necessarily the same as a “non-standardized” format, as structured formats could also be proprietary in structure), and the instant current claim only recites an act of presenting information based upon receipt of information (which as explained above is insignificant extra solution activity). Thus the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues the instant claim recites an inventive concept due to the limitations constituting unconventional steps. However this argument is not persuasive since the additional elements have been addressed above as insignificant extra solution activity rather than unconventional.
With regards to claim 1 and its corresponding 35 § USC 102 rejection, the applicant argues the claim requires ‘unstructured information source documents … (e.g. meeting notes) [while] “Marsh is entirely silent regarding any meeting notes”. However this argument is not persuasive since the applicant is arguing limitation(s) not present in the claim language (meeting notes). Furthermore, the claim does not limit the type of unstructured information and the specification does not define unstructured information to be limited to only meeting notes, nor does the claim limit types of information corresponding to unstructured information, and thus Marsh is maintained to teach the claimed ‘unstructured information” to be items such as meeting engagements and/or comments (as explained in the prior and current office action, Marsh specifically recites in paragraph 0143, “the system analyzes the unstructured text to identify where (extra-) financial metrics are located within the text”.
The applicant further argues that Marsh is limited to static corporate or public documents that are unrelated to up-to-date contemporaneous writing based on real time events and discussions … such as informal meeting notes or notes taken during a call.”. However this argument is not persuasive since the applicant is arguing limitations not present in the claim language regarding an aspect of contemporaneous writing during a call. Should the applicant require this aspect/feature, then those features should be present in the claim language.
The applicant further argues that Marsh fails to mention anything regarding extracting metrics or translating meeting notes to metrics [since] “… Marsh fails to mention parsing information directly from raw meeting notes into metric fields”. However this argument is not persuasive since the applicant is arguing limitations not present in the claim language regarding parsing into metric fields. Should the applicant require this aspect/feature, then those features should be present in the claim language. The examiner also points out Marsh specifically recites in paragraph 0143, “the system analyzes the unstructured text to identify where (extra-) financial metrics are located within the text”.
The applicant argues Marsh fails to mention “anything pertaining to displaying on-screen structured metrics that are updated automatically as new documents are accessed and parsed”. However, this argument is not persuasive since Marsh in paragraphs 0119 and 0184 teaches data metrics associated with specific tagged content can be expanded, such that information can be searched and presented based on specific tag(s) . The examiner points out that the applicant might be intending to require a more specific aspect of updating, however the examiner points out that a set of metrics could be updated by appending to the set of metrics with new information. Should the applicant have intended the more specific method of updating ( for example: locating /referencing a specific named metric in order to replace the located/referenced named metric’s value; then the examiner suggests the applicant consider clarifying how an update is performed.
The applicant argues claims 11 and 20 are allowable for reasons presented by the applicant for claim 1. However those reasons have been shown/explained to be not persuasive as explained above, and thus, this argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues claims 2-10, 12-19 and 21 are patentable since they depend upon on of the independent claims. However this argument is not persuasive since the independent claims have been shown/explained to be rejected above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights