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 .
The response was received on 6/9/2025. Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 are pending where claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 were previously presented and claims 5 and 13 were cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/9/2025 has been entered.
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 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With regard to claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea:
A method comprising:
detecting,
analyzing,
determining,
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The following limitations have been identified as being additional elements as discussed below.
“by the one or more processors” (recites generic hardware elements to merely apply the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of documents, each document of the plurality of documents comprising legal citations (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of receiving information over a network/mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g));
pruning, by the one or more processors, the subset of documents based on the proximity metrics and a set of contextual rules to produce a reduced set of documents (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of filtering/sorting information based on criteria, see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
wherein the set of contextual rules identify legal citation signals and classify a cited with relationship as supportive, contradictory, or a combination thereof based on the legal citation signals, the reduced set of documents corresponding to a portion of the subset of documents in which the legal citations have the cited with relationship indicating that the legal citations are cited together for a same point of law, a comparative point of law, a contradictory point of law, or a combination thereof (recites field of use limitations describing the particular classifications of the documents that are desired, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
and generating, by the one or more processors, one or more records in a metadata database (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of electronic recordkeeping, see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
wherein each of the one or more records comprises metadata that identifies at least one document within the reduced set of documents and the legal citations having the cited with relationship within the at least one document, and a classification of the cited with relationship as supportive, comparative, contradictory, or a combination thereof (recites field of use/technological environment limitation that specifies the particular data that is inside the records, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As seen from the above discussion, the identified limitations did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Below is the analysis of the claims:
“by the one or more processors” (recites generic hardware elements to merely apply the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of documents, each document of the plurality of documents comprising legal citations (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving information over a network/mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
pruning, by the one or more processors, the subset of documents based on the proximity metrics and a set of contextual rules to produce a reduced set of documents (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of filtering/sorting information based on criteria, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
wherein the set of contextual rules identify legal citation signals and classify a cited with relationship as supportive, contradictory, or a combination thereof based on the legal citation signals, the reduced set of documents corresponding to a portion of the subset of documents in which the legal citations have the cited with relationship indicating that the legal citations are cited together for a same point of law, a comparative point of law, a contradictory point of law, or a combination thereof (recites field of use limitations describing the particular classifications of the documents that are desired, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
and generating, by the one or more processors, one or more records in a metadata database (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of electronic recordkeeping, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
wherein each of the one or more records comprises metadata that identifies at least one document within the reduced set of documents and the legal citations having the cited with relationship within the at least one document, and a classification of the cited with relationship as supportive, comparative, contradictory, or a combination thereof (recites field of use/technological environment limitation that specifies the particular data that is inside the records, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As seen from above, the respective claim elements taken individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When taken as a whole (in combination), the claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements relate to receiving data/documents to be used by the computer system as well as performing some pruning/filtering operations based on particular criteria and storing records about the associations between documents.
With regard to claim 2, this claim recites wherein the plurality of documents comprises case law documents, and wherein the cited with relationship indicates that a particular document cites to a first legal citation and a second legal citation which recites the types of documents being used which amounts to field of use limitations (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and adds no meaningful limitations beyond that of the abstract idea as discussed above.
With regard to claim 3, this claim recites wherein the set of proximity rules classifies the legal citations within a particular document relative to one another as having at least one of a document proximity, a section proximity, a paragraph proximity, or a sentence proximity which recites the particular criteria being used to evaluate a document which amounts to field of use limitations for defining the criteria to be used when making a decision/judgement (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and adds no meaningful limitations beyond that of the abstract idea as discussed above.
With regard to claim 4, this claim recites wherein the set of contextual rules is configured to: identify markers corresponding to the legal citations within each document of the subset of documents; determine a structure for each document of the subset of documents (recites mental process step of evaluation and judgement of textual patterns in a document),
wherein the structure identifies an organization of structural elements within each document of the subset of documents, wherein the structural elements include sections, paragraphs, sentences, or a combination thereof; or a combination thereof (recites field of use limitation describing the format/layout of a document, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With regard to claim 6, this claim recites wherein the set of contextual rules is configured to associate the legal citations and the proximity metric with one or more structural elements of the structure for each document of the subset of documents which recites insignificant extrasolution activity of recording information which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of electronic recordkeeping (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) and adds no meaningful limitation beyond that of the abstract idea.
With regard to claim 7, this claim recites wherein the pruning further comprises applying contextual rules to each document within the subset of documents having a set of legal citations associated with proximity metrics satisfying a threshold proximity metric which recites insignificant extrasolution activity of doing multiple filtering/sorting steps which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of sorting information (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 8, this claim recites wherein the generating is performed daily which recites field of use limitations describing when the computer system is creating records (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and adds no meaningful limitation beyond that of the abstract idea.
With regard to claim 9, this claim recites receiving, by the one or more processors, search parameters via inputs to a graphical user interface (GUI) (which recites to insignificant extrasolution activity of receiving information over a network which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
executing, by the one or more processors, a first search of a document database based on the search parameters to identify a set of search results, each search result of the set of search results corresponding to a particular document of a second plurality of documents associated with the document database (which recites using a processor to perform search functionalities which amounts to merely apply the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
outputting, by the one or more processors, the set of search results to the GUI (which recites insignificant extrasolution activity of transmitting information which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
wherein the GUI comprises one or more selectable elements for viewing the documents corresponding to the set of search results (this recites technological environment limitation describing generally how a graphical user interface operates, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
receiving, by the one or more processors, a first input corresponding to selection of a selected element of the one or more selectable elements, the selected element corresponding to a particular search result of the set of search results (which recites insignificant extrasolution activity of receiving information over a network; this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
displaying, based on the first input, a document corresponding to the particular search result (which recites insignificant extrasolution activity of transmitting/sending information; this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
initiating, by the one or more processors, a second search based on a second input received during display of the document corresponding to the particular search result (which recites utilizing a processor to perform a second search task which amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f),
wherein the second search comprises: querying the metadata database to identify additional search results, the additional search results corresponding to other documents of the second plurality of documents associated with the document database that identify a cited with relationship with respect to the document corresponding to the particular search result and an additional document of the second plurality of documents (this recites mental process steps of research, evaluation/comparison, and judgement steps to find related documents/information);
and outputting, by the one or more processors, the additional search results to the GUI (this recites insignificant extrasolution activity of transmitting/sending information; this amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 10,
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea:
A method comprising:
…
…
wherein the second search comprises: querying a metadata database to identify additional search results, the additional search results corresponding to other documents of the plurality of documents that identify a cited with relationship indicating that legal citations are cited together for a same point of law, a comparative point of law, a contradictory point of law, or a combination thereof with respect to the document corresponding to the particular search result and an additional document of the plurality of documents (this recites mental process steps of research, evaluation/comparison, and judgement steps to find related documents/information).
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The following limitations have been identified as being additional elements as discussed below.
receiving, by one or more processors, search parameters via inputs to a graphical user interface (GUI) (which recites to insignificant extrasolution activity of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(g));
executing, by the one or more processors,
outputting, by the one or more processors, the set of search results to the GUI (which recites to insignificant extrasolution activity of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
wherein the GUI comprises one or more selectable elements for viewing the documents corresponding to set of search results (recites technological environment limitation describing generally how a graphical user interface operates, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
receiving, by the one or more processors, a first input corresponding to selection of a first selected element of the one or more selectable elements, the first selected element corresponding to a particular search result of the set of search results (which recites insignificant extrasolution activity of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(g));
displaying, based on the first input, a document corresponding to the particular search result (which recites insignificant extrasolution activity of transmitting/sending information; see MPEP 2106.05(g));
initiating, by the one or more processors, a second search based on a second input received during display of the document corresponding to the particular search result (which recites utilizing a processor to perform a second search task which amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
wherein the metadata database comprises records including a classification of the cited with relationship as supportive, comparative, contradictory, or a combination thereof (recites field of use/technological environment limitation that specifies the particular data that is inside the records, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
and outputting, by the one or more processors, the additional search results to the GUI (which recites insignificant extrasolution activity of transmitting information, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As seen from the above discussion, the identified limitations did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Below is the analysis of the claims:
receiving, by one or more processors, search parameters via inputs to a graphical user interface (GUI) (which recites to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
executing, by the one or more processors,
outputting, by the one or more processors, the set of search results to the GUI (which recites to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
wherein the GUI comprises one or more selectable elements for viewing the documents corresponding to set of search results (recites technological environment limitation describing generally how a graphical user interface operates, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
receiving, by the one or more processors, a first input corresponding to selection of a first selected element of the one or more selectable elements, the first selected element corresponding to a particular search result of the set of search results (which recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
displaying, based on the first input, a document corresponding to the particular search result (which recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting/sending information; see MPEP 2106.05(d));
initiating, by the one or more processors, a second search based on a second input received during display of the document corresponding to the particular search result (which recites utilizing a processor to perform a second search task which amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
wherein the metadata database comprises records including a classification of the cited with relationship as supportive, comparative, contradictory, or a combination thereof (recites field of use/technological environment limitation that specifies the particular data that is inside the records, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
and outputting, by the one or more processors, the additional search results to the GUI (which recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
As seen from above, the respective claim elements taken individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When taken as a whole (in combination), the claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements relate to receiving user interactions to perform searches and see respective results being displayed to the user.
With regard to claim 11, this claim recites wherein the cited with relationship is determined for each document of the plurality of documents by: detecting, by the one or more processors, legal citations within a given document of the plurality of documents (recites mental process steps of mental evaluation/comparison/understanding when reading a document and recognizing/detecting a textual pattern of interest, i.e. a citation);
determining, by the one or more processors, a proximity metric for the given document based on a set of proximity rules, the proximity metric associated with the legal citations within the given document (recites mental process step of deciding how to evaluate citations in a document to decide if those citations are relevant together, i.e. whether both citations in a same section of the document is enough for the citations to be related or if the citations need to be in the same paragraph);
and evaluating, by the one or more processors, the given document based on the proximity metric and a set of contextual rules (this recites mental process steps of evaluating documents).
With regard to claim 12, this claim recites wherein the set of contextual rules are configured to: identify markers corresponding to the legal citations within each document of the plurality of documents; determine a structure for each document of the plurality of documents (recites mental process step of evaluation and judgement of textual patterns in a document),
wherein the structure identifies an organization of structural elements within each document, wherein the structural elements include sections, paragraphs, sentences, or a combination thereof; or a combination thereof (recites field of use limitation describing the format/layout of a document, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With regard to claim 14, this claim recites generating, for a given additional search result of the additional search results, a summary of a portion of the document corresponding to the additional search result, the portion comprising a first legal citation corresponding to the particular search result and a second legal citation corresponding to the additional document, the first and second legal citations having a cited with relationship with respect to one another (which recites in a high level of generality, mental process steps of mentally summarizing the relevance of one document with another document);
and outputting the summary to the GUI (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of transmitting information for display which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting information for display, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 15, this claim recites wherein the document database and the metadata database are updated daily which recites field of use limitations describing when the computer system is creating records (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and adds no meaningful limitation beyond that of the abstract idea.
With regard to claim 16, this claim recites receiving, by the one or more processors, a third input corresponding to selection of a third selected element of the one or more selectable elements, the third selectable element corresponding to a subset of the additional search results corresponding to documents of the plurality of documents having a particular cited with relationship with the document corresponding to the particular search result which recites mental process steps of evaluating and judgement, i.e. user mentally choosing from the list of options, where the recitations of receiving an input via the processors is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and adds no meaningful limitation beyond that of the abstract idea as discussed above.
With regard to claim 17:
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea:
A method comprising:
detecting,
analyzing,
determining, citations are relevant together, i.e. whether both citations in a same section of the document is enough for the citations to be related or if the citations need to be in the same paragraph);
wherein the second search comprises: querying the metadata database to identify additional search results, the additional search results corresponding to other documents of the second plurality of documents associated with the document database that identify a cited with relationship with respect to the document corresponding to the particular search result and an additional document of the second plurality of documents (this recites mental process steps of research, evaluation/comparison, and judgement steps to find related documents/information);
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The following limitations have been identified as being additional elements as discussed below.
“by the one or more processors” (recites generic hardware elements to merely apply the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of documents, each document of the plurality of documents comprising legal citations (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of receiving information over a network/mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g));
pruning, by the one or more processors, the subset of documents based on the proximity metrics and a set of contextual rules to produce a reduced set of documents (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of filtering/sorting information based on criteria, see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
wherein the set of contextual rules identify legal citation signals and classify a cited with relationship as supportive, contradictory, or a combination thereof based on the legal citation signals, the reduced set of documents corresponding to a portion of the subset of documents in which the legal citations have the cited with relationship indicating that the legal citations are cited together for a same point of law, a comparative point of law, a contradictory point of law, or a combination thereof (recites field of use limitations describing the particular classifications of the documents that are desired, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
generating, by the one or more processors, one or more records in a metadata database (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of electronic recordkeeping, see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
wherein each of the one or more records comprises metadata that identifies at least one document within the reduced set of documents and the legal citations having the cited with relationship within the at least one document, and a classification of the cited with relationship as supportive, comparative, contradictory, or a combination thereof (recites field of use/technological environment limitation that specifies the particular data that is inside the records, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
receiving, by one or more processors, search parameters via inputs to a graphical user interface (GUI) (which recites to insignificant extrasolution activity of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(g));
executing, by the one or more processors,
outputting, by the one or more processors, the set of search results to the GUI (which recites to insignificant extrasolution activity of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(g)),
wherein the GUI comprises one or more selectable elements for viewing the documents corresponding to set of search results (recites technological environment limitation describing generally how a graphical user interface operates, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
receiving, by the one or more processors, a first input corresponding to selection of a first selected element of the one or more selectable elements, the first selected element corresponding to a particular search result of the set of search results (which recites insignificant extrasolution activity of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(g));
displaying, based on the first input, a document corresponding to the particular search result (which recites insignificant extrasolution activity of transmitting/sending information; see MPEP 2106.05(g));
initiating, by the one or more processors, a second search based on a second input received during display of the document corresponding to the particular search result (which recites utilizing a processor to perform a second search task which amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
and outputting, by the one or more processors, the additional search results to the GUI (which recites insignificant extrasolution activity of transmitting information, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As seen from the above discussion, the identified limitations did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Below is the analysis of the claims:
“by the one or more processors” (recites generic hardware elements to merely apply the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of documents, each document of the plurality of documents comprising legal citations (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving information over a network/mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
pruning, by the one or more processors, the subset of documents based on the proximity metrics and a set of contextual rules to produce a reduced set of documents recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of filtering/sorting information based on criteria, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
wherein the set of contextual rules identify legal citation signals and classify a cited with relationship as supportive, contradictory, or a combination thereof based on the legal citation signals, the reduced set of documents corresponding to a portion of the subset of documents in which the legal citations have the cited with relationship indicating that the legal citations are cited together for a same point of law, a comparative point of law, a contradictory point of law, or a combination thereof (recites field of use limitations describing the particular classifications of the documents that are desired, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
and generating, by the one or more processors, one or more records in a metadata database (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of electronic recordkeeping, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
wherein each of the one or more records comprises metadata that identifies at least one document within the reduced set of documents and the legal citations having the cited with relationship within the at least one document, and a classification of the cited with relationship as supportive, comparative, contradictory, or a combination thereof (recites field of use/technological environment limitation that specifies the particular data that is inside the records, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
receiving, by one or more processors, search parameters via inputs to a graphical user interface (GUI) (which recites to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
executing, by the one or more processors,
outputting, by the one or more processors, the set of search results to the GUI (which recites to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(d)),
wherein the GUI comprises one or more selectable elements for viewing the documents corresponding to set of search results (recites technological environment limitation describing generally how a graphical user interface operates, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
receiving, by the one or more processors, a first input corresponding to selection of a first selected element of the one or more selectable elements, the first selected element corresponding to a particular search result of the set of search results (which recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving information over a network, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
displaying, based on the first input, a document corresponding to the particular search result (which recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting/sending information; see MPEP 2106.05(d));
initiating, by the one or more processors, a second search based on a second input received during display of the document corresponding to the particular search result (which recites utilizing a processor to perform a second search task which amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
and outputting, by the one or more processors, the additional search results to the GUI (which recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
As seen from above, the respective claim elements taken individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When taken as a whole (in combination), the claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements relate to receiving data/documents to be used by the computer system as well as performing some pruning/filtering operations based on particular criteria and storing records about the associations between documents (limitations similar to claim 1) and the additional elements relate to receiving user interactions to perform searches and see respective results being displayed to the user (limitations similar to claim 10).
With regard to claim 18, this claim recites wherein the set of proximity rules classifies each of the additional documents identified in the given document relative to one another as having at least one of a document proximity, a section proximity, a paragraph proximity, or a sentence proximity which recites the particular criteria being used to evaluate a document which amounts to field of use limitations for defining the criteria to be used when making a decision/judgement (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and adds no meaningful limitations beyond that of the abstract idea as discussed above.
With regard to claim 19, this claim recites wherein the set of contextual rules are configured to: identify markers corresponding to the legal citations within each document of the plurality of documents; determine a structure for each document of the plurality of documents (recites mental process step of evaluation and judgement of textual patterns in a document),
wherein the structure identifies an organization of structural elements within each document of the subset of documents, wherein the structural elements include sections, paragraphs, sentences, or a combination thereof; or a combination thereof (recites field of use limitation describing the format/layout of a document, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With regard to claim 20, this claim recites wherein the document database and the metadata database are updated daily which recites field of use limitations describing when the computer system is creating records (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and adds no meaningful limitation beyond that of the abstract idea.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gipp et al [US 2011/0264672] in view of Pitkow et al [US 6,457,028], Cucerzan et al [US 2013/0268519 A1], and Srikrishna et al [US 2013/0262537 A1].
With regard to claim 1, Gipp teaches a method comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, a plurality of documents, each document of the plurality of documents comprising
analyzing, by the one or more processors, each of the plurality of documents to detect a subset of documents in the plurality of documents, the subset of documents detected based on the
Gipp does not appear to explicitly teach:
each document of the plurality of documents comprising legal citations;
pruning, by the one or more processors, the subset of documents based on the proximity metrics and a set of contextual rules to produce a reduced set of documents, wherein the set of contextual rules identify legal citation signals and classify a cited with relationship as supportive, comparative, contradictory, or a combination thereof based on the legal citation signals, the reduced set of documents corresponding to a portion of the subset of documents in which the legal citations have the cited with relationship indicating that the legal citations are cited together for a same point of law, a comparative point of law, a contradictory point of law or a combination thereof;
and generating, by the one or more processors, one or more records in a metadata database, wherein each of the one or more records comprises metadata that identifies at least one document within the reduced set of documents and the legal citations having the cited with relationship within the at least one document, and a classification of the cited with relationship as supportive, comparative, contradictory, or a combination thereof.
Pitkow teaches pruning, by the one or more processors, the subset of documents
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the citation analysis process of Gipp by providing means to reduce the total number of documents that must be considered and processed/analyzed as taught by Pitkow in order to improve the response time of the system when analyzing citations such that the system is not wasting processing time, power, and other resources to consider completely unrelated citation pairs which in turn improves “computational efficiency” (see Pitkow, col 7, line 67 – col 8, line 1).
Gipp in view of Pitkow teach pruning, by the one or more processors, the subset of documents based on the proximity metrics and a set of contextual rules to produce a reduced set of documents, … the reduced set of documents corresponding to a portion of the subset of documents in which the
generating, by the one or more processors, one or more records in a metadata database, wherein each of the one or more records comprises metadata that identifies at least one document within the reduced set of documents and the legal citations having the cited with relationship within the at least one document (see Gipp, paragraph [0081]; see Pitkow, col 7, lines 56-66; the system can generate records to reflect the analytical results of the citation pairs).
Gipp in view of Pitkow do not appear to explicitly teach:
each document of the plurality of documents comprising legal citations;
wherein the set of contextual rules identify legal citation signals and classify a cited with relationship as supportive, comparative, contradictory, or a combination thereof based on the legal citation signals,
wherein each of the one or more records comprises … and a classification of the cited with relationship as supportive, comparative, contradictory, or a combination thereof.
Cucerzan teaches each document of the plurality of documents comprising legal citations (see paragraph [0027]; the corpus of documents can relate to law review documents).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the document storage and citation system of Gipp in view of Pitkow by providing means to store and analyze law review documents with legal citations as taught by Cucerzan in order to expand the availability of the system to other industries/fields that rely on and utilize citations frequently thereby providing the benefits of analyzing and finding co-citations to the legal field.
Gipp in view of Pitkow and Cucerzan teach wherein the set of contextual rules identify legal citation signals (see Gipp, paragraph [0077]; Cucerzan, paragraphs [0026]-[0027]; the signals can relate to legal citations in law review documents and be able to identify at least supporting and contradictory references/citations).
Gipp in view of Pitkow and Cucerzan do not appear to explicitly teach:
classify a cited with relationship as supportive, comparative, contradictory, or a combination thereof based on the legal citation signals,
wherein each of the one or more records comprises … and a classification of the cited with relationship as supportive, comparative, contradictory, or a combination thereof.
Srikrishna teaches classify a cited with relationship as supportive, comparative, contradictory, or a combination thereof based on the legal citation signals (see paragraphs [0058] and [0029]; the system can determine relationship between files and that relationship can be saved/associated with the file).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the document storage and citation system of Gipp in view of Pitkow and Cucerzan by providing means to identify relationships between documents as taught by Srikrishna in order to provide greater context to citations so that the system can provide users with additional information about the relationship between documents thus saving the user time and effort and be able to selectively choose which documents to read instead of having to read all the related/similar documents to try to see which ones are supporting a particular position/topic and which ones don’t.
Gipp in view of Pitkow, Cucerzan, and Srikrishna teach classify a cited with relationship as supportive, comparative, contradictory, or a combination thereof based on the legal citation signals, wherein each of the one or more records comprises … and a classification of the cited with relationship as supportive, comparative, contradictory, or a combination thereof (see Gipp, paragraph [0077]; Cucerzan, paragraphs [0026]-[0027]; see Srikrishna, paragraphs [0058] and [0029]; the system can utilize an attribute/tag/field to classify the relationship as contradictory, supportive/complements, or summarizes/comparative).
With regard to claim 3, Gipp in view of Pitkow, Cucerzan, and Srikrishna teach wherein the set of proximity rules classifies the legal citations within a particular document relative to one another as having at least one of a document proximity, a section proximity, a paragraph proximity, or a sentence proximity (see Gipp, paragraphs [0061-[0073]; the system can classify the proximity and apply particular rules based on the classification to determine a similarity value).
With regard to claim 4, Gipp in view of Pitkow, Cucerzan, and Srikrishna teach wherein the set of contextual rules is configured to: identify markers corresponding to the legal citations within each document of the subset of documents; determine a structure for each document of the subset of documents, wherein the structure identifies an organization of structural elements within each document of the subset of documents, wherein the structural elements include sections, paragraphs, sentences, or a combination thereof; or a combination thereof (see Gipp, paragraphs [0062]-[0071]; the system can analyze and be able to determine the structure of the document to assist in determining the distance between two citations including based on sections/chapters; paragraphs, or sentences).
With regard to claim 6, Gipp in view of Pitkow, Cucerzan, and Srikrishna teach wherein the set of contextual rules is configured to associate the legal citations and the proximity metric with one or more structural elements of the structure for each document of the subset of documents (see Gipp, paragraphs [0074] and [0099]-[0100]; the system is able to associated legal citations with proximity metrics and structural elements when determining a score/value for the citation pair).
With regard to claim 7, Gipp in view of Pitkow, Cucerzan, and Srikrishna teach wherein the pruning further comprises applying contextual rules to each document within the subset of documents having a set of legal citations associated with proximity metrics satisfying a threshold proximity metric (see Gipp, paragraph [0100]; see Pitkow, col 7, line 62 through col 8, line 3; the system can utilize the similarity scores to prune citations that are deemed unrelated since they don’t satisfy a proximity threshold of relatedness).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gipp et al [US 2011/0264672] in view of Pitkow et al [US 6,457,028 Cucerzan et al [US 2013/0268519 A1], and Srikrishna et al [US 2013/0262537 A1] in further view of Pendyala [US 2022/0215017 A1].
With regard to claim 2, Gipp in view of Pitkow, Cucerzan, and Srikrishna teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Gipp in view of Pitkow, Cucerzan, and Srikrishna wherein the cited with relationship indicates that a particular document cites to a first legal citation and a second legal citation (see Gipp, Figure 2; a particular document can cite multiple documents).
Gipp in view of Pitkow, Cucerzan, and Srikrishna do not appear to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of documents comprises case law documents.
Pendyala teaches wherein the plurality of documents comprises case law documents (see paragraph [0021]; case law corpus or documents can be analyzed).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the document types that are used by the citation system of Gipp in view of Pitkow, Cucerzan, and Srikrishna by being able to use case law documents as taught by Pendyala in order to expand the availability of the system to other document types that rely on and utilize citations frequently thereby providing the benefits of analyzing and finding co-citations for those documents and aiding users of the legal field to find related and similar documents.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gipp et al [US 2011/0264672] in view of Pitkow et al [US 6,457,028], Cucerzan et al [US 2013/0268519 A1], and Srikrishna et al [US 2013/0262537 A1] in further view of Kim et al [US 6,754,654].
With regard to claim 8, Gipp in view of Pitkow, Cucerzan, and Srikrishna teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Gipp in view of Pitkow, Cucerzan, and Srikrishna do not appear to explicitly teach wherein the generating is performed daily.
Kim teaches wherein the generating is performed daily (see col 6, line 63 through col 7, line 34; the system can perform daily updates of the databases to account for new documents being created).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the document storage and citation system of Gipp in view of Pitkow, Cucerzan, and Srikrishna by providing means update the document and citation information on a periodically as taught by Kim in order to extend the duration and usability of the system by not having it be a static knowledge repository but rather be able to be updated with new information thus allowing the system to stay relevant for users over time.
Claims 9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gipp et al [US 2011/0264672] in view of Pitkow et al [US 6,457,028], Cucerzan et al [US 2013/0268519 A1], and Srikrishna et al [US 2013/0262537 A1] in further view of Vanderwende et al [US 2012/0233152 A1].
With regard to claim 9, Gipp in view of Pitkow, Cucerzan, and Srikrishna teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Gipp in view of Pitkow, Cucerzan, and Srikrishna do not appear to explicitly teach receiving, by the one or more processors, search parameters via inputs to a graphical user interface (GUI);
executing, by the one or more processors, a first search of a document database based on the search parameters to identify a set of search results, each search result of the set of search results corresponding to a particular document of a second plurality of documents associated with the document database;
outputting, by the one or more processors, the set of search results to the GUI, wherein the GUI comprises one or more selectable elements for viewing the documents corresponding to the set of search results;
receiving, by the one or more processors, a first input corresponding to selection of a selected element of the one or more selectable elements, the selected element corresponding to a particular search result of the set of search results;
displaying, based on the first input, a document corresponding to the particular search result;
initiating, by the one or more processors, a second search based on a second input received during display of the document corresponding to the particular search result, wherein the second search comprises:
querying the metadata database to identify additional search results, the additional search results correspondi