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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendments, arguments and remarks, filed on 3/13/2026, in which claim(s) 16-35 is/are presented for further examination.
Claim(s) 1-15 has/have been previously cancelled.
Claim(s) 16, 25, 26 and 35 has/have been amended.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment(s) to claim(s) 16 and 26 has/have been accepted. The rejection(s) of the claim(s), under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite, has/have been withdrawn. Consequently, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 17-25 and 27-35, which depend(s) from claim(s) 16 and 26, has/have also been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment(s) to claim(s) 16, 25, 26 and 35 has/have been accepted.
Note: The examiner requests that applicant cite where in the specification there is support for applicant’s amendment(s)/addition(s). It will quicken the prosecution if the examiner does not have to search the entire specification to ensure that applicant has not introduced new matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-35, filed on 3/13/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Applicant argues that claim(s) 16-35 are patent eligible, see the bottom of page 5 to page 7 of applicant’s remarks, filed on 3/13/2026.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the updated 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections in light of applicant’s amended claims below. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”), the claims can be interpreted as an abstract idea without significantly more. Using the BRI (and in a simplified example covered by the claims), the steps currently recited can be interpreted as mere mental steps performed in the mind and mathematical calculations made with the aid of pen and paper, which are merely implemented using a computer, which is not patent eligible. The current claims merely recite:
“identifying at least one second document authored after the corresponding first document and containing content about the person” (mental process – see if the 2 documents were written by the same person and has information about the person),
“determine presence of indicator terms from a predefined set of discrepancy indicator terms in the second document” (mental process – person looks for terms indicating a discrepancy in the second document),
“assign weights to the indicator terms present in the second document” (mental process – person decides to give weights of importance to indicator terms in the second document),
“calculate a temporal weight ...” (mathematical calculation), “compute a weighted score ...” (mathematical calculation),
“compute a weighted score …” (mathematical calculation),
“calculate a probability …” (mathematical calculation),
“determine a numerator equal to a square of the weighted score” (mathematical calculation),
“determine a ratio of the numerator to a denominator equal to one plus the square of the weighted score” (mathematical calculation),
“prioritize the first documents for review based on the calculated probabilities” (mental process – person picks the documents to review based on the calculated probabilities)
The claims also recite:
“receive, via the input device, a plurality of first documents authored by a plurality of persons” (data gathering – insignificant pre-solution activity)
“display, via the display device, a user interface comprising, the calculated probabilities, links to the corresponding first documents, and visual indicators for probabilities exceeding a threshold value” (displaying data – insignificant post-solution activity).
In other words, the current claims recite seeing if documents by the same person contain information about the person, assigning weights, calculating weights, computing a score and calculating probabilities. Using the BRI, these steps can all be evaluated/performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. The claims automate these steps by using a computer. The claims also automate gathering the documents and displaying the results using a computer.
The examiner is not saying that the invention cannot be patent eligible, but, as presently claimed, the invention is not patent eligible.
If the steps are claimed in a way that it can only be performed in a computer (e.g., some examples of activities that can only be performed in a computer include accessing computer memory/storage, writing to computer memory/storage, determining the percentage of a processor’s capacity being used, determining the percentage of memory used …) and is somehow used by the computer to obtain a practical application/result then perhaps the claims could be patent eligible; however, as currently presented the claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16-35, under 35 U.S.C. 103, see the middle of page 16 to page 18 of applicant’s remarks, filed on 3/13/2026, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 16-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) 16 and 26 recite(s) the limitation(s) of:
“identify at least one second document authored after the corresponding first document and containing content about the person;” (mental process)
“determine presence of indicator terms from a predefined set of discrepancy indicator terms in the second document;” (mental process)
“assign weights to the indicator terms present in the second document;” (mental process)
“calculate a temporal weight based on time elapsed between the first document and the second document;” (mental process with the aid of pen and paper)
“compute a weighted score incorporating the temporal weight, the weights of present indicator terms, and an aggregate factor that decreases based on a number of identified indicator terms;” (mental process with the aid of pen and paper)
“calculate a probability of a significant discrepancy between content of the second document and content of the first document;” (mental process with the aid of pen and paper)
“determining a numerator equal to a square of the weighted score,” (mental process)
“determining a ratio of the numerator to a denominator equal to one plus the square of the weighted score;” (mental process)
“prioritize the first documents for review based on the calculated probabilities; wherein a significant discrepancy is indicated when the probability exceeds the threshold value.” (mental process)
The limitation(s), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, see the discussion above. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of “an input device”, “a processor”, “a display device” and “memory” in claim 16, “an input device” and “a display device” in claim 26 does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental processes grouping. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor and a generic memory in claim 16 do(es) not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental processes grouping. The mere nominal recitation of a generic input device and a generic display device in claims 16 and 26 do(es) not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim(s) recite(s) a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, see the discussion above. The steps of:
“receive, via the input device, a plurality of first documents authored by a plurality of persons;” (data gathering) – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)
“display, via the display device, a user interface comprising: the calculated probabilities, links to the corresponding first documents, and visual indicators for probabilities exceeding a threshold value;” (transmitting data) – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)
is/are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The steps are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The background does not provide any indication that the computing device is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component. Accordingly, a conclusion that the steps are a well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than insignificant extra solution activity with mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as explained below, the recitation of “an input device”, “a processor”, “a display device” and “memory” do(es) nothing more than applying the exception with a generic, off-the-shelf computer component(s). The background does not provide any indication that the components are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf display component. Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving and transmitting steps are a well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception with well understood, routine and conventional insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim(s) 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as explained below. The limitation(s) “calculate residuals between the calculated probabilities and the adjudicated determinations;” (mental process with the aid of pen and paper) and “adjust the threshold value to minimize a sum of squares of the residuals;” (mental process) in claims 17 and 27, “arrange the displayed probabilities in descending order;” (mental process) in claims 18 and 28, “classify each indicator term into categories comprising: direct contradictions, indirect contradictions, and temporal inconsistencies; and assign base weights to terms based on their categories” (mental process) in claims 19 and 29, “analyze co-occurrence patterns between indicator terms;” (mental process) and “adjust the base weights based on the co-occurrence patterns;” (mental process with the aid of pen and paper) in claims 20 and 30, “calculate the temporal weight to increase with elapsed time for a first category of indicator terms; and calculate the temporal weight to decrease with elapsed time for a second category of indicator terms;” (mental process with the aid of pen and paper) in claims 21 and 31, “iteratively: calculate discrepancy scores using the weights,” (mental process with the aid of pen and paper) and “determine residuals between calculated scores and adjudicated determinations, adjust the weights to minimize the residuals using gradient descent optimization;” (mental process) in claims 22 and 32, “monitor convergence of the weights during iteration; determine when a convergence threshold has been met; and generate a notification when optimal weights have been achieved;” (mental process) in claims 23 and 33, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim(s) recite(s) a mental process. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim(s) 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 35 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as explained below, the recitation(s) of “receive training data comprising adjudicated discrepancy determinations;” (data gathering) – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) in claims 17 and 27, “present a heat map visualization where color intensity corresponds to probability magnitude; and provide interactive filtering controls for probability thresholds;” (transmitting data) – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) in claims 18 and 28, “maintain a database of historical co-occurrence patterns;” (storing information in memory) – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) in claims 20 and 30, “receive training data comprising pairs of first and second documents and adjudicated determinations of discrepancies;” (data gathering) – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) and “store the adjusted weights in the memory;” (storing information in memory) – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) in claims 22 and 32, “wherein the first documents comprise one or more of insurance claims, loan applications, job applications, or security clearance applications;” (extracting data from a physical document) – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(v) in claims 24 and 34, “wherein the second documents comprise one or more social media postings, or blog posts;” (extracting data from a physical document) – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(v) in claims 25 and 35 are nothing more than applying a computer as a tool which is mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and or merely tying the abstract idea to the field of use of data migration. The background does not provide any indication that the computing device is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component. Accordingly, the recitations in the claims is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 16-23 and 26-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avery et al., US 2014/0280204 A1 (hereinafter “Avery”) in view of Koss, US 2011/0078156 A1 (hereinafter “Koss”) in further view of Seare et al., US 2011/0125531 A1 (hereinafter “Seare”).
Claims 16 and 26
Avery discloses a semantic analysis system comprising:
an input device, a processor, a display device, and memory (Avery, [0015], see display/monitor, at least one processor, one or more memories and input devices/keyboard/mouse) storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the semantic analysis system to:
receive, via the input device (Avery, [0040], see input devices (e.g., keyboard, mouse, voice recognition, etc.) to enter and/or view information), a plurality of first documents authored by a plurality of persons (Avery, [0016], see the client system stores or has access to the data (e.g., document links, document section weight values, etc.), and includes weighting module 16 and scoring module 20 to perform document change scoring; Avery, [0033], see content defined as documents and serving as a central repository, the content management system (CMS) typically increases the version level of new updates to an already existing file (e.g., the CMS has the ability to collect and track data for content in the CMS, which includes authors; and Avery, [0046], see sectioning documents by author);
for each person of the plurality of persons:
identify at least one second document authored after the corresponding first document (See below) and
determine presence of indicator terms in the second document (See below);
assign weights to the indicator terms present in the second document (Avery, [0037], see, referring the FIG. 4B, the server compares the new document version [i.e., “second document”] (or subsequent document version) sections to the corresponding sections of the document's previously approved version [i.e., “first document”] at step 450. The server combines differences in each section [i.e., “indicator terms”] with the defined weight for each section [i.e., “weights to indicator terms”] to calculate a weighted provenance value at step 455 (e.g., by scoring module 20). For example, if a previous document revision had a small change score that did not trigger a document review, that revision may not be considered an approved version for the purposes of an organizational review, but may be a conditionally approved document for which additional modifications may be based until a review is warranted (e.g., a formal review). Only the most recent revision that had gone through a review process and had been approved will be used to compare against);
between the first document and the second document (See Avery, [0037] above comparing the new document version and the document’s previously approved version);
the weights of present indicator terms, and an aggregate factor that decreases based on a number of identified indicator terms (Avery, [0030], see once changes in the various document sections 305 are determined or identified, the weights can be applied to each document section 310, 315, 320, and 325 [i.e., “weights of present indicator terms”] using weights in weighting section 340. Potential change scores [i.e., “aggregate factor”] are calculated by scoring section 370 (e.g., by way of scoring module 20));
calculate a probability of a significant discrepancy between content of the second document and content of the first document (Avery, [0038], see the document review process is triggered based on the weighted provenance calculated at step 455. If the new provenance value indicates that substantial changes have been made to the new version (e.g., the change score or provenance value exceeds a threshold), then the organization's procedures may indicate that review of the new document version is in order. The server saves the new document version and the calculated weighted provenance value at step 470) by:
determining a ratio of the numerator to a denominator (Avery, [0023], see upper score [i.e., “numerator”] is the score divided by the number of document sections [i.e., “denominator”])
display, via the display device, a user interface comprising:
the calculated probabilities (See below),
links to the corresponding first documents (See below), and
visual indicators for probabilities exceeding a threshold value (Avery, [0048], see employ any number of any type of user interface (e.g., Graphical User Interface (GUI), command-line, prompt, etc.) for obtaining or providing information (e.g., documents, document collections, sections for partitioning, weights values, change reports [i.e., “calculated probabilities”], etc.), where the interface may include any information arranged in any fashion. … The interface screens may include any suitable actuators (e.g., links, tabs, etc.) to navigate between the screens in any fashion; Avery, [0038], see change score/provenance value exceeds a threshold; and Avery, [0023], see the scoring section showing 2 possible change scoring values);
prioritize the first documents for review based on the calculated probabilities (Avery, [0038], see, at this point in a document's history, the organization may trigger a document review process at step 465. The document review process is triggered based on the weighted provenance calculated [i.e., corresponds to the “calculated probabilities] at step 455. If the new provenance value indicates that substantial changes have been made to the new version (e.g., the change score or provenance value exceeds a threshold), then the organization's procedures may indicate that review of the new document version is in order; and Avery, Fig. 4B, step 465 “Organization may trigger review process depending on provenance value” [i.e., corresponds to the “calculated probabilities]);
wherein a significant discrepancy is indicated when the probability exceeds the threshold value (Avery, [0038], see, at this point in a document's history, the organization may trigger a document review process at step 465. The document review process is triggered based on the weighted provenance calculated [i.e., corresponds to the “calculated probabilities] at step 455. If the new provenance value indicates that substantial changes have been made to the new version (e.g., the change score or provenance value exceeds a threshold) [i.e., corresponds to the “threshold value]).
Avery does not appear to explicitly disclose containing content about the person;
from a predefined set of discrepancy indicator terms;
calculate a temporal weight based on time elapsed;
compute a weighted score incorporating the temporal weight;
determining a numerator equal to a square of the weighted score, and
determining a ratio equal to one plus the square of the weighted score.
Koss discloses containing content about the person (Koss, [0030], see the exemplary score record 200 includes an entity identifier 201, which associates the record 200 with a particular entity. In various embodiments, score records may be associated with entities such as a web page, a person and/or user account, a tag, and the like);
calculate a temporal weight based on time elapsed (Koss, [0022], see a baseline time is chosen, and assigned a weight of one. Future weights are calculated as an exponentially increasing function of time);
compute a weighted score incorporating the temporal weight (Koss, [0095], see calculating time-weighted values from a stream of scoring events);
determining a numerator equal to a square of the weighted score (Koss, [0082], see the square of the ratio of the entity's daily score (S.sub.d) to its weekly score (S.sub.w), the trending function used to weight the longer-term score to determine a weighted trend value), and
determining a ratio equal to one plus the square of the weighted score (Koss, [0082], see the square of the ratio of the entity's daily score (S.sub.d) to its weekly score (S.sub.w).
Avery and Koss are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area such determining changes over time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Avery and Koss before him/her, to modify the scoring of Avery to include the temporal weight of Koss because it would improve relevancy.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to account for relative popularity and/or relevance over time, see Koss, [0002].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Koss with Avery to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
The combination of Avery and Koss does not appear to explicitly disclose from a predefined set of discrepancy indicator terms.
Seare discloses from a predefined set of discrepancy indicator terms (Seare, [0323], see, the first step, 1501, is the comparison of information developed from the data history search process with reference information stored in the Parameter Tables [i.e., corresponds to “predefined set of discrepancy indicator terms”]. The next step, 1502, is to test the services from the history processing to see if it falls within the defined statistical criteria in the Parameter Tables. If it does an indicator is given to this effect, 1504. If the services fall outside the statistical criteria of the reference Parameters Table, a variance alert describing the difference will be given, 1503. The process may be repeated for each index code and its profile developed in the history process, 1505. The final step is to produce output reports, 1506. These reports are either on-line look-up process reports or hard-copy report format reports).
Avery, Koss and Seare are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area such determining changes over time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Avery, Koss and Seare before him/her, to modify the temporal weight scoring of the combination of Avery and Koss to include the indicator terms of Seare because it would improve accuracy.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to achieve a reliable, relevant data set, see Seare, [0009].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Seare with the combination of Avery and Koss to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claim(s) 26 recite(s) similar limitations to claim 16 and is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 17 and 27
With respect to claims 17 and 27, the combination of Avery, Koss and Seare discloses wherein the instructions further cause the system to:
receive training data comprising adjudicated discrepancy determinations (See below);
calculate residuals between the calculated probabilities and the adjudicated determinations (See below); and
adjust the threshold value to minimize a sum of squares of the residuals (Avery, [0025] and [0026], see tracking document history; Avery, [0026]-[0028], see provenance percentage value and numerical figures; and Avery, [0038], see threshold).
Claims 18 and 28
With respect to claims 18 and 28, the combination of Avery, Koss and Seare discloses wherein the instructions to display the user interface cause the system to:
arrange the displayed probabilities in descending order (See below);
present a heat map visualization where color intensity corresponds to probability magnitude (See below); and
provide interactive filtering controls for probability thresholds (Avery, [0014], see interface and reports including document change scores and how they are displayed is a design choice; and Avery, [0016], see interface and reports including search results and how they are displayed is a design choice).
Claims 19 and 29
With respect to claims 19 and 29, the combination of Avery, Koss and Seare discloses wherein the instructions further cause the system to:
classify each indicator term into categories comprising: direct contradictions, indirect contradictions (Avery, [0016], see the client system stores or has access to the data (e.g., document links, document section weight values, etc.), and includes weighting module 16 and scoring module 20 to perform document change [i.e., “direct/indirect contradictions”] scoring; and Avery, [0030], see once changes in the various document sections 305 are determined or identified, the weights can be applied to each document section 310, 315, 320, and 325 [i.e., “weights of present indicator terms”] using weights in weighting section 340. Potential change scores [i.e., “aggregate factor”] are calculated by scoring section 370 (e.g., by way of scoring module 20)), and temporal inconsistencies (Koss, [0020], see temporally-globalized score values); and
assign base weights to terms based on their categories (Avery, [0016], see the client system stores or has access to the data (e.g., document links, document section weight values, etc.), and includes weighting module 16 and scoring module 20 to perform document change scoring; and Avery, [0030], see once changes in the various document sections 305 are determined or identified, the weights can be applied to each document section 310, 315, 320, and 325 [i.e., “weights of present indicator terms”] using weights in weighting section 340. Potential change scores [i.e., “aggregate factor”] are calculated by scoring section 370 (e.g., by way of scoring module 20)).
Claims 20 and 30
With respect to claims 20 and 30, the combination of Avery, Koss and Seare discloses wherein the instructions further cause the system to:
analyze co-occurrence patterns between indicator terms (Avery, [0030], see once changes [i.e., “patterns”] in the various document sections 305 are determined or identified, the weights can be applied to each document section 310, 315, 320, and 325 [i.e., “weights of present indicator terms”] using weights in weighting section 340. Potential change scores [i.e., “aggregate factor”] are calculated by scoring section 370 (e.g., by way of scoring module 20); and Koss, [0102], see user’s historical patterns);
maintain a database of historical co-occurrence patterns (Koss, [0102], see user’s historical patterns); and
adjust the base weights based on the co-occurrence patterns (Avery, [0016], see the client system stores or has access to the data (e.g., document links, document section weight values, etc.), and includes weighting module 16 and scoring module 20 to perform document change scoring; and Avery, [0030], see once changes in the various document sections 305 are determined or identified, the weights can be applied to each document section 310, 315, 320, and 325 [i.e., “weights of present indicator terms”] using weights in weighting section 340. Potential change scores [i.e., “aggregate factor”] are calculated by scoring section 370 (e.g., by way of scoring module 20)).
Claims 21 and 31
With respect to claims 21 and 31, the combination of Avery, Koss and Seare discloses wherein the instructions further cause the system to:
calculate the temporal weight to increase with elapsed time for a first category of indicator terms (Koss, [0022], see a baseline time is chosen, and assigned a weight of one. Future weights are calculated as an exponentially increasing function of time); and
calculate the temporal weight to decrease with elapsed time for a second category of indicator terms (Koss, [0022], see a baseline time is chosen, and assigned a weight of one. Future weights are calculated as an exponentially increasing function of time).
Claims 22 and 32
With respect to claims 22 and 32, the combination of Avery, Koss and Seare discloses wherein the instructions further cause the system to:
receive training data comprising pairs of first and second documents and adjudicated determinations of discrepancies (Avery, [0016], see the client system stores or has access to the data (e.g., document links, document section weight values, etc.), and includes weighting module 16 and scoring module 20 to perform document change scoring; and Koss, [0102], see user’s historical patterns);
iteratively:
calculate discrepancy scores using the weights, determine residuals between calculated scores and adjudicated determinations, adjust the weights to minimize the residuals using gradient descent optimization (Avery, [0016], see the client system stores or has access to the data (e.g., document links, document section weight values, etc.), and includes weighting module 16 and scoring module 20 to perform document change scoring; Avery, [0030], see once changes in the various document sections 305 are determined or identified, the weights can be applied to each document section 310, 315, 320, and 325 [i.e., “weights of present indicator terms”] using weights in weighting section 340. Potential change scores [i.e., “aggregate factor”] are calculated by scoring section 370 (e.g., by way of scoring module 20); and Koss, [0066], see iterating the temporally-globalized score values); and
store the adjusted weights in the memory (Avery, [0016], see the client system stores or has access to the data (e.g., document links, document section weight values, etc.), and includes weighting module 16 and scoring module 20 to perform document change scoring).
Claims 23 and 33
With respect to claims 23 and 33, the combination of Avery, Koss and Seare discloses wherein the instructions further cause the system to:
monitor convergence of the weights during iteration (See below);
determine when a convergence threshold has been met (See below); and
generate a notification when optimal weights have been achieved (Avery, [0025] and [0026], see tracking document history; Avery, [0026]-[0028], see provenance percentage value and numerical figures; Avery, [0038], see threshold; Avery, [0014], see interface and reports including document change scores; and Koss, [0066], see iterating the temporally-globalized score values).
Claim(s) 24, 25, 34 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avery in view of Koss in further view Seare in further view of De Vries et al., US 2015/0220862 A1 (hereinafter “De Vries”).
Claims 24 and 34
Claim(s) 24 and 34 incorporate(s) all of the limitations above.
The combination of Avery, Koss and Seare does not appear to expressly disclose wherein the first documents comprise one or more of insurance claims, loan applications, job applications, or security clearance applications.
De Vries discloses wherein the first documents comprise one or more of insurance claims (De Vries, [0034], see determining a possible fraudulent insurance claim), loan applications, job applications, or security clearance applications.
Avery, Koss and De Vries are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area such determining changes over time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Avery, Koss, Seare and De Vries before him/her, to modify the temporal weight scoring with indicator terms of the combination of Avery, Koss and Seare to include the documents of De Vries because it would increase the types of documents that can be processed.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to monitor and evaluate customer behavior, as evidenced by a customer’s postings in their social media profile(s), in order to detect, collect and report the existence of evidence that representations made by the customer of a service provider were potentially fraudulent, see De Vries, [0009].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine De Vries with the combination of Avery and Koss to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claims 25 and 35
Claim(s) 25 and 35 incorporate(s) all of the limitations above.
The combination of Avery, Koss and Seare does not appear to expressly disclose wherein the second documents comprise one or more social media postings, or blog posts.
De Vries discloses wherein the second documents comprise one or more of social media postings (De Vries, [0034], see continuously monitoring each identified social media platform for the particular claimant in real time), or blog posts.
See claims 24 and 34 above for the motivation to combine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
– Greenspan et al., 2015/0199411 for a time slider.
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.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUBERT G CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1396. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00A-5:00P EST; alt. F 8:00A-4:00P 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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at (571) 272-4080. 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.
HUBERT G. CHEUNG
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 2161
Examiner: Hubert Cheung
/Hubert Cheung/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2161Date: April 16, 2026
/APU M MOFIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights