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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the Office Action mailed on October 30, 2025, the applicant has submitted an amendment filed on January 232, 2026; amending claims 1, 7-8, and 14-15; cancelling claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20; and arguing to traverse the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15-16, and 19-20 in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10 of the remarks, filed on January 23, 2026, with respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 has been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 (depends on co-pending claim 1) of co-pending Application No. 18/477761 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because co-pending application 9 requires the additional elements (See highlighted portions identified in the table below) not required by application claim 1.
Claim 1 and co-pending application claim 9 recite common subject matter;
Whereby claim 1, which recites the open ended transitional phrase "comprising", does not preclude the additional elements recited by co-pending application claim 9, and
Whereby the elements of claim 1 are fully anticipated by co-pending application claim 9, and anticipation is "the ultimate or epitome of obviousness" (Un re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
Application No. 18/477,770
Co-pending Application No. 18/477,761
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
Claim 9. A computer-implemented method comprising:
initializing a second document information extraction model based on weights provided by a first model that is pretrained over first training data including unlabeled business documents, wherein the first model is pretrained to evaluate word tokens in the unlabeled business documents according to dynamic windows adjustable to word token size of each document of the unlabeled business documents, wherein the first model evaluates the word tokens by applying masking according to an individual masking rate determined for the word tokens;
obtaining first training data based on a plurality of unlabeled documents for use in training a first model for document information extraction; pretraining the first model according to a dynamic window adjustable to a word token count for each document of the plurality of unlabeled documents, wherein the pretraining comprises evaluating word tokens in each of the plurality of unlabeled documents where masking is applied according to individual masking rates determined for the word tokens, and wherein the individual masking rates are indicative of respective informative relevance of the word tokens;
performing fine-tuning of the second document information extraction model based on labeled business documents as second training data, wherein the labeled business documents are labeled and evaluated according to a virtual adversarial training (VAT); and
performing fine-tuning of the pretrained first model based on labeled business documents as second training data, wherein the labeled business documents are labeled and evaluated according to a virtual adversarial training (VAT); and
based on the performed fine-tuning, generating a classifier for classification of information extraction.
based on the performed fine-tuning, generating a classifier on top of the second document information extraction model; and providing the pretrained first model for initializing a second document information extraction model to be trained based on labeled documents as second training data.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 and 14-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the combination of Liu, et al., Kumar, et al. , and Greco, et al. do not disclose or fairly suggest wherein the first model is pretrained to evaluate word tokens in the unlabeled business documents according to dynamic windows adjustable to word token size of each document of the unlabeled business documents, wherein the first model evaluates the word tokens by applying masking according to an individual masking rate determined for the word tokens. It is for this reason and in combination with all of the other elements of the claims that claims 8-11 and 14-18 are allowable over the combination of Liu, et al., Kumar, et al. , and Greco, et al.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 7 will also be allowable if applicants overcomes the obviousness double patent rejection of claim 1 by way of an amendment or filing a Terminal Disclaimer.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G MARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, ANDREW MOYER can be reached at (571)272-9523. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL G MARIAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675