532DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s arguments submitted on May 03, 2025 for Application # 18/475,181 filed on September 26, 2023 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 and also claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
No claims are amended.
No claims are canceled.
No claims are newly added.
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. The independent claims recite a method, apparatus and computer system. Therefore, Step 1 is satisfied for claims 1-20.
Step 2A Prong One: The independent claims analyzing selected data, technician words and providing solutions, abstract ideas. Given the breadth of the present claim language, claim that recites comparing ingested data using DOM ‘algorithm’ to identify inconsistencies to expect data can be performed in a human mind, which is a “mental process” of abstract idea set forth in the 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826. The recitations of method, system and a machine-readable medium does not change the mental process nature of these limitations because the computing machinery is a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. The method that is recited in the independent claim limitation can be performed by using a pen and paper can be drawn on a paper.
For purposes of further discussion, the limitations are treated as a single abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The examiner finds no additional claim elements beyond the judicial exception, whether individually or in combination, that integrate the exception into a practical application.
connecting to a dataset;
ingesting data from a user interface (UI);
comparing ingested data in fields that have been entered to expected data, the expected data including:
data in corresponding entries of the dataset; and
backend document object model (DOM) values; and
identifying any inconsistencies between the ingested data and the expected data..
The computer elements are recited at a high degree of generality and represent instructions to apply the judicial exception on a system, which is a computer. There is no indication of any specialized programming algorithm or specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components. These limitations can also be viewed as applying the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Please see MPEP 2106.05(I).
The examiner finds no claimed improvement to computers or other technology to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The examiner therefore concludes that the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception? The examiner finds no additional elements or combination that provide an inventive concept. The additional elements such as accessing a knowledge base data structure and accessing a plurality of training samples is not significant invention.
The examiner concludes that none of the dependent claims as presently drafted recite patent eligible subject matter.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subhedar et al. US 2020/0012553 A1 (hereinafter ‘Subhedar’) in view of Kottoor et al US 12,223,552 B1 (hereinafter ‘Kottoor’).
As per claim 1, Subhedar disclose, A computer-implemented method comprising (Subhedar: Paragraph 0014: disclose execute computer programs which are equated to computer-implemented method):
connecting to a dataset (Subhedar: paragraph 0009: disclose permanent data storage which is equated to dataset. Storing a process data to permanent storage as connecting); and
identifying any inconsistencies between the ingested data and the expected data (Subhedar: paragraph 0033: disclose content to check for inconsistencies in the data structure ‘ingested data’ with revisions to an electronic file are evaluated for correctness).
It is noted, however, Subhedar did not specifically detail the aspects of
ingesting data from a user interface (UI);
comparing ingested data in fields that have been entered to expected data, the expected data including:
data in corresponding entries of the dataset; and
backend document object model (DOM) values as recited in claim 1.
On the other hand, Kottoor achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
ingesting data from a user interface (UI) (Kottoor: Col 11 Lines 18-20: disclose user interface from which ingested and augmented transactions which are provided through user interface (UI));
comparing ingested data in fields that have been entered to expected data, the expected data including (Kottoor: Col 15 Lines 58-60: disclose comparison is above a specified other value. Examiner argues that the comparison is made between two values and examiner believes the comparison of ingested data and expected data are just data values, therefore examiner believe the prior-art teaching applies to this limitation):
data in corresponding entries of the dataset (Kottoor: Col 13 Lines 6-11: disclose scrape account information from the web interface); and
backend document object model (DOM) values (Kottoor: Col 13 Lines 6-11: disclose programmed to traverse a document object model (DOM)).
Kottoor and Subhedar are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and both from the same “problem-solving area”. Namely, they are both from the field of “Data Validation System”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Kottoor and Subhedar because they are both directed to data validation system and both are from the same field of endeavor. The skilled person would therefore regard it as a normal option to include the restriction features of Subhedar with the method described by Kottoor in order to solve the problem posed.
The motivation for doing so would have been to have service providers may have access to metadata or other suitable data capable of augmenting records that the remaining service providers lack (Kottoor: Col 1 Lines 17-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Subhedar with Kottoor to obtain the invention as specified in instant claim 1.
As per claim 2, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Subhedar disclose, wherein the data from the UI is automatically and continuously checked for accuracy as it is ingested (Subhedar: paragraph 0047: disclose corruption is detected processing operations are automatically performed).
As per claim 3, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Subhedar disclose, wherein a software robot is used to ingest the data from the UI (Subhedar: paragraph 0018: disclose bot framework applications, which is equated to software robot).
As per claim 4, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1 and 3 above.
It is noted, however, Subhedar did not specifically detail the aspects of
wherein the ingesting includes automating a set of tasks, and collecting data from the tasks as the tasks are performed or completed as recited in claim 4.
On the other hand, Kottoor achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
wherein the ingesting includes automating a set of tasks, and collecting data from the tasks as the tasks are performed or completed (Kottoor: Col 5 Lines 43-44: disclose ingest the records from a variety of different accounts, where examiner equates set of tasks to records).
As per claim 5, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above.
It is noted, however, Subhedar did not specifically detail the aspects of
performing optical character recognition of the UI and including recognized features from the optical character recognition as part of the expected data as recited in claim 5.
On the other hand, Kottoor achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
performing optical character recognition of the UI and including recognized features from the optical character recognition as part of the expected data (Kottoor: Col 6 Lines 6-7: disclose optical character recognition).
As per claim 6, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above.
It is noted, however, Subhedar did not specifically detail the aspects of
performing web scraping of the UI and including data collected from the web scraping as part of the expected data as recited in claim 6.
On the other hand, Kottoor achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
performing web scraping of the UI and including data collected from the web scraping as part of the expected data (Kottoor: Col 10 Line 4 : disclose web scraping).
As per claim 7, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Subhedar disclose, using a machine learning (ML) model that has been trained on keywords and/or primary keys of the dataset to recognize patterns or anomalies in the dataset based on detected on screen data (Subhedar: paragraph 0034: disclose machine-learning model for detection of invalidities).
As per claim 8, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Subhedar disclose, using a machine learning (ML) model to determine whether a relationship exists between the ingested data and the expected data (Subhedar: paragraph 0034: disclose machine learning for validation checks and they check every part of the data structure for consistency).
As per claim 9, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Subhedar disclose, performing remedial action for any inconsistencies between the ingested data and the expected data (Subhedar: paragraph 0034: disclose machine learning for validation checks and they check every part of the data structure for consistency).
As per claim 10, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1 and 9 above. In addition, Subhedar disclose, wherein the remedial action includes flagging data in the dataset for which inconsistencies have been identified (Subhedar: paragraph 0034: disclose applying in-memory fixes ‘remedial’ to update a data structure of an electronic file).
As per claim 11, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1 and 9 above. In addition, Subhedar disclose, wherein the remedial action for an inconsistency between an ingested data value and a corresponding value in the dataset includes replacing the corresponding value in the dataset with the ingested data value (Subhedar: paragraph 0034: disclose applying in-memory fixes ‘remedial’ to update a data structure of an electronic file).
As per claim 12, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1 and 9 above. In addition, Subhedar disclose, wherein the remedial action further includes arbitrating a conflict between more than one ingested value (Subhedar: paragraph 0034: disclose applying in-memory fixes ‘remedial’ to update a data structure of an electronic file).
As per claim 13, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Subhedar disclose, wherein a web browser is used to provide the UI and ingest the data (Subhedar: paragraph 0019: disclose web browser where an electronic file is a web page).
As per claim 14, Subhedar disclose, A computer system comprising a memory having computer readable instructions; and one or more processors for executing the computer readable instructions to configure the computer system to perform a method comprising (Subhedar: Paragraph 0014: disclose execute computer programs): remaining limitations in this claim 14 are similar to the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, examiner rejects these remaining limitations under the same rationale as limitations rejected under claim 1.
As per claim 15, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 14 above. In addition, Subhedar disclose, the computer system is cloud-based (Subhedar: paragraph 0026: disclose cloud-based data storage).
It is noted, however, Subhedar did not specifically detail the aspects of
the ingested data is received from the UI of an end user device as recited in claim 15.
On the other hand, Kottoor achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
the ingested data is received from the UI of an end user device (Kottoor: Col 3 Lines 16-28: disclose device that ingest are as user input devices).
As per claim 16, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 5. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 16 limitations under the same rationale as claim 5.
As per claim 17, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 6. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 17 limitations under the same rationale as claim 6.
As per claim 18, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 8. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 18 limitations under the same rationale as claim 8.
As per claim 19, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 9. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 19 limitations under the same rationale as claim 9.
As per claim 20, Subhedar disclose, A computer program product comprising one or more computer-readable memory devices encoded with data including instructions that, when executed, causes a processor set to carry out a method of maintaining dataset integrity, the method comprising (Subhedar: Paragraph 0053: disclose computer-readable memory): remaining limitations in this claim 20 are similar to the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, examiner rejects these remaining limitations under the same rationale as limitations rejected under claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 03, 2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1, 14 and 20 are directed to the abstract idea of ingesting data from a user interface (UI);comparing ingested data in fields that have been entered to expected data, the expected data including: data in corresponding entries of the dataset; and backend document object model (DOM) values; and identifying any inconsistencies between the ingested data and the expected data. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements such as ingesting data, comparing using document object model to identify inconsistencies in the ingested data, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 14 and 20 are directed to an abstract recited in the form of a generalized invention which can be performed in a human mind with a pencil and paper. The particular claimed elements which constitute the abstract idea include
ingesting data from a user interface (UI);
comparing ingested data in fields that have been entered to expected data, the expected data including: data in corresponding entries of the dataset; and backend document object model (DOM) values; and
identifying any inconsistencies between the ingested data and the expected data.
An identifying inconsistencies between data using a document object model, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification.
Mathematical relationships and algorithms have been found by the courts (e.g. Benson, Flook, Diehr, Grams) to be abstract ideas. For example, in Benson, a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another was found to be an exception, as was an algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition in Grams. The concept described in claim 1 does not meaningfully differ from those found by the courts to constitute mathematical algorithms.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Additional elements recited in the claim include the limitations: a computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform the method; identifying data inconsistencies. These limitations are directed to realizing the mathematical algorithm in a computer system. Executing the using a model to compare is little more than a broad recitation of generic use of a computer (i.e., executing). Providing the validate function is at most insignificant post solution activity of identifying inconsistencies. The preamble's recitation of a "computer-readable medium" and a "computer" are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Further, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because merely providing a result and executing the algorithm by a computer is akin to adding the words “apply it” with a computer in conjunction with the abstract idea. Such limitations are not enough to add significantly more to the method of business rules of validation, which represent mathematical relationships and algorithms.
Considering all the limitations in combination, the claimed additional computer elements do not show any inventive concept in applying the mathematical operations, such as improving the performance of a computer or any other technology. The steps describe nothing more than a computer’s basic function of identifying data inconsistencies, and do not meaningfully limit the performance of the calculation. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant's arguments filed on May 03, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner’s response to applicant’s argument related to claims 1, 14 and 20.
Applicant argues neither Subhedar nor Kottoor teach ‘ ingesting data from a user interface (UI);comparing ingested data in fields that have been entered to expected data, the expected data including: data in corresponding entries of the dataset; and backend document object model (DOM) values; and identifying any inconsistencies between the ingested data and the expected data’. Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument. Examiner argues that Subhedar disclose in paragraph 0033 as content to check for inconsistencies in the data structure ‘ingested data’ with revisions to an electronic file are evaluated for correctness and Kottoor disclose in Col 15 Lines 58-60 of comparing is above a specified other value. And in Col 13 Lines 6-11 teaches scrape account information from the web interface and in Col 13 Lines 6-11 teaches programmed to traverse a document object model (DOM). The limitation states of comparing entered data through to expected data, where Subhedar teaches of in paragraph 0041 of entered data to be validated ‘compared’ to identify corrupted state ‘inconsistencies’ to be repaired. Examiner understand the applicant arguments in view of specification as disclosed in paragraph 0020. However, examiner did not see the limitations as argued in the claim language specifically related to catching errors before they have been entered in the dataset and believe the prior-art teaches the limitations as claimed. Since examiner can’t import limitations unnecessarily into the claim language under BRI guidelines
Examiner interprets these claim limitations under BRI (Broadest Reasonable Interpretation) guidelines where examiner without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily.
MPEP 2106.II.C
USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.... The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.... An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.”).
Examiner’s response to applicant’s argument related to claims 2-13 and 15-19.
Examiner argues that the same rationale applies to these dependent claims as the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub, US 2007/0130176 A1 disclose “Document processing method, recording medium, and document processing system”
US Pub, US 2009/0292994 A1 disclose “Additional behavior e.g. web search, providing method for e.g. computing device, involves performing automated conversion of source file content to form that is compatible with target file”
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 PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3836. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F. 8am - 4pm, EST.
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, Ann J Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159