Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
This action is in response to the application filed on 9/29/2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for prior priority dates including:
This application is a CON of PCT/US2023/023354 05/24/2023
PCT/US2023/023354 has PRO 63/376,011 09/16/2022
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.
All claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
All claims are directed to a method which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 (herein called the Primary Independent Claim) as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. The Primary Independent Claim recites the limitations of A compliance system and method, comprising the steps:
a. finding keywords online and in documents;
b. ranking keywords by a risk level, and
c. providing lower-risk alternative words and educational resource links.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The limitation of at least “ranking keywords by a risk level and providing lower-risk alternative words” recites a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of at least “system” in the Primary Independent Claim is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The Additional Independent Claims are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The examiner did not find any additional elements that would cause further analysis. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, all the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware and software per se amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more as well as MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, all independent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims, and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, all the claims are not patent-eligible.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13 listed below are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McL = McLaughlin (U.S. Patent Pub 20170154382) in view of Spi = Spivack (U.S. Patent Pub 2013/0290317) and Ste=Steinberg (U.S. Patent 11438334) and McE=McEwing (U.S. Patent Pub 20200350072) and Smyth (U.S. Patent Pub US 20140195296)
Re claim 1: McL discloses:
A compliance system and method, comprising the steps: (see McL Figure 1-3)
automatically retrieving digital content, (ii) and using a natural-language-processing (NLP) keyword-extraction model combined with a trained machine-learning (ML) classifier to compute a numerical risk score for each keyword; (see McL Figure 1, item 142-146 + Fig 2 item S210-240 + Fig 3 item 330 + Fig 9 item 940 + para 0053, 0078)
ranking keywords by a risk level by the numerical risk score and a computer- implemented system, designating the risk level as a highest risk, a high risk, a medium risk, a low risk, or a lowest risk, wherein the keywords are considered a regulatory risk, and (see McL Figure 1, item 130 + Fig 2 item S250 + Fig 9 item 1000 + para 0053, 0078)
providing lower-risk alternative words and educational resource links by the computer-implemented system, wherein the highest risk, the high risk, and the medium risk means the keyword attracts scrutiny for a regulatory agency, wherein the scrutiny includes a lawsuit or a warning letter, and changing the highest risk, the high risk, and medium risk as suggested the highest risk level includes a legal action or a lawsuit. (see McL Figure 16 + Figure 1, item 130-160 + Fig 2 item S250-S260 + Fig 3, item 360, 310 + Fig 9 item 1000 + Fig 11 item 1126 + para 0053, 0078)
While examiner believes, McL teaches the features of applicant, should the limitations be argued and for the sake of compact prosecution additional reference, Spi and Ste and McE additionally teaches the limitations of the applicant. Specifically: see Stein Figure 4 + Fig 12 item 1240 + Fig 17 item 1700-1750 + column 13 lines 7-50. See Stein Figure 4 + Fig 12 item 1240 + Fig 17 item 1700-1750 + column 13 lines 7-50. See McE Figure 32 item + Fig 33 “extract keyword” + para 0217 + Fig 31 item 3004, 3014. See Smyth para 0011 and claim 12.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effect filling date was made to modify McL by adapting any features of Spi and Ste and McE.
It is clear that one would be motivated by the teaching in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, both McL teaches key word modeling system that is adapted in Spi and Ste and McE system.
Re claim 4: see claim 1 +
wherein the keywords include copywrite keywords and marketing keywords and replace keywords before publishing articles, social media posts, or blogs. (see McL Figure 1, item 130 + Fig 2 item S250 + Fig 9 item 1000 + para 0053, 0078 + Stein Figure 4 + Fig 12 item 1240 + Fig 17 item 1700-1750 + column 13 lines 7-50)
Re claim 6: see claim 1 +
wherein the highest risk, the high risk, and the medium risk means the keyword attracts scrutiny for a regulatory agency, wherein the scrutiny includes a lawsuit or a warning letter, and changing the highest risk, the high risk, and medium risk as suggested; the highest risk level includes a legal action or a lawsuit. (see McL Figure 16 + Figure 1, item 130-160 + Fig 2 item S250-S260 + Fig 9 item 1000 + Fig 11 item 1126 + para 0053, 0078)
Re claim 7: see claim 1 +
further comprising a program, a web application, or a web browser extension. (see McL Figure 16 + Figure 1, item 130-160 + Fig 2 item S250-S260 + Fig 9 item 1000 + Fig 11 item 1126 + para 0053, 0078)
Re claim 8: see claim 1 +
further comprising a web search, entering in a website URL and selecting from a predetermined list of keywords; opening all keyword occurrences and with a compliance report reporting the keyword, risk level, possible suggestions, resources, and listing the content. (see McL Figure 16 + Figure 1, item 130-160 + Fig 2 item S250-S260 + Fig 9 item 1000 + Fig 11 item 1126 + para 0053, 0078)
Re claim 9: see claim 1 +
further comprising a live training and content development module. (see McL Figure 16 + Figure 1, item 130-160 + Fig 2 item S250-S260 + Fig 9 item 1000 + Fig 11 item 1126 + para 0053, 0078)
Re claim 10: see claim 1 +
wherein the document include a newspaper article, a social media post, a video recording, audio recording, a professional document, a letter, an email, a record, a register, a newspaper, an update, a blog, a report, a log, a chronicle, a file, an advertisement, an internet webpage, a forum post, instant messaging, an archive or a catalogue or any other document which may be adapted to be read or assessed by the system. (see McL Figure 16 + Figure 1, item 130-160 + Fig 2 item S250-S260 + Fig 9 item 1000 + Fig 11 item 1126 + para 0053, 0078)
Re claim 13: see claim 1 +
wherein the highest risk, the high risk, and the medium risk words are selected from the group consisting of: keywords: regulate blood sugar, regulates blood sugar, blood sugar regulation, balance blood sugar, inflammatory, inflammation, Celiac, heart rhythm regulation, hypertension, heart attack, stroke, paralysis, tumor, arrhythmia, arthritis, gout, pain, sore throat, cough, antitussive, antibacterial, nausea, chemotherapy, hernia, Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, Crohn's, colitis, diarrhea, diverticulitis, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, IBS, colic, obesity, excessive urination, headache, diabetic, mental illness, numbness and tingling, erectile dysfunction, impotence, cardiovascular diseases, sexual dysfunction, cholera, diabetes, infertility, toothaches, lowers blood sugar, parasites, reduces fever, lowers cholesterol, depression, anxieties, phobia, depressive, schizophrenia, anxiety, infection, autoimmune, hemorrhoid, constipation, sore. (see McE para 0361-0368 + Figure 32 item + Fig 33 “extract keyword” + Fig 31 item 3004, 3014 + see McL Figure 16 + Figure 1, item 130-160 + Fig 2 item S250-S260 + Fig 9 item 1000 + Fig 11 item 1126 + para 0053, 0078)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seguritan et al., U.S. Patent Pub 2022/0327541, discloses a methods, systems, and/or devices to help protect consumers from fraudulent activity using compromised PII.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In particular, and respect to Claim 1 the Applicant argued 1st: prior art does not teach “ranking keywords by a risk level”
The Examiner refutes the argument made by the Applicant and draws the attention to see McL para 0053, 0078 and see Smyth para 0011 and claim 12.
Applicants argued 2nd, prior art does not teach “providing lower-risk alternative words and educational resource links”
The Examiner refutes the argument made by the Applicant and draws the attention to see McL Figure 16 + Figure 1, item 130-160 + Fig 2 item S250-S260 + + Fig 3, item 360, 310.
Applicants argued 3rd, prior art does not teach “table 1/ named keyworks of claim 11-13.
First notes claims 11-12 are cancelled. Regarding the list of words in claim 13. The Examiner refutes the argument made by the Applicant and draws the attention to McE para 0361-0368 and the extraction can extract any word. Any specific keyword is a design choice of picking or extracting keywords.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten Apple whose telephone number is (571)272-5588. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRSTEN S APPLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693