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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the Office Action mailed July 7, 2025, applicant submitted an amendment filed on January 6, 2026, in which the applicant amended and requested reconsideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that the prior art cited fails to teach the claims as amended. Applicants’ arguments are persuasive, but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Regarding the 101 rejection, Applicants argue that the type of processing claimed requires computing systems, as described in the application. As Applicants point out, such data is recited in the specification, but no details are specifically recited in the claim language. Applicants also point out the process of using an embedding model that produces multi-dimensional arrays of numbers cannot be performed in the human mind. Such limitations are considered mathematical concepts, relationships, formulas, equations and/or calculations, which falls into one of the groupings of abstract ideas. Therefore, Applicants arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
Collectively and individually, these activities fall within categories courts and USPTO guidance commonly treat as abstract ideas: mental processes (recognizing/extracting/organizing information), mathematical concepts (mapping text to numerical vectors), and fundamental data-processing/manipulation and storage activities.
Key authorities supporting this characterization include Alice (organizing/analyzing information as an abstract idea), Content Extraction (data extraction as abstract), and cases treating mathematical transforms as judicial exceptions.
Overall Step 1 conclusion:
The claim is directed to an abstract idea (information collection/organization/ mathematical transformation and analysis) rather than a specific technical solution to a computer problem.
Step 2 — Do the claim elements, individually or as an ordered combination, add “significantly more” to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter?
Review of additional elements for an inventive concept:
Generic computing/AI terminology: The claim invokes “an artificial intelligence engine,” “performing embeddings,” “vector database,” and “a Large Language Model (LLM).” These are high-level functional recitations of known computational tools rather than specific algorithmic, architectural, or hardware innovations.
Lack of technical detail: The claim does not specify particular embedding algorithms, novel vector indexing/search structures, unique data layouts, constrained model architectures, training regimens, hardware/software integration, or quantified performance/security improvements that would show an unconventional technical contribution.
Insignificant additional activity: Storing embeddings and invoking an LLM to generate “insights” read as conventional data storage and result-generation steps that do not themselves supply a technical solution.
Ordered-combination analysis:
Combining conventional steps in a typical NLP pipeline (identify → extract → chunk → embed → store → generate) produces a workflow for handling and analyzing text. Under current case law, merely arranging well-known, conventional components to achieve abstract information-processing results does not necessarily provide the required “inventive concept” absent a novel, non-conventional arrangement or technical improvement (see BASCOM, Enfish for contrast).
No claimed element or combination is shown to improve how the computer functions, to solve a technical bottleneck, or to produce a concrete, measurable technical effect (e.g., reduced latency, lower memory footprint, guaranteed error bounds, privacy-preserving search with a defined computational bound).
Overall Step 2 conclusion:
The claim, as written, lacks an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into eligible subject matter. The additional elements are generic and conventional in the context of modern text/AI pipelines and do not supply “significantly more.”
The dependent claims recite similar language such as extracting information, analyzing contracts, identifying documents, clustering data and generating notifications, which is all non-statutory.
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (an abstract idea) without an inventive concept.
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) 1 and 4-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (PGPUB 2025/0147993), hereinafter referenced as Chen in view of Kershaw et al. (PGPUB 2019/0171660), hereinafter referenced as Kershaw.
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 18, Chen discloses a method, apparatus and medium, hereinafter referenced as a method comprising:
identifying a document for processing (document; p. 0047);
extracting, by an artificial intelligence engine, information from the document (text extracted from documents; p. 0016, 0044-0049, 0055-0057, 0074);
creating, by an artificial intelligence engine, a plurality of chunks of data associated with the document (p. 0025-0026, 0047-0051, 0059-0061, 0083-0088);
performing embeddings for the plurality of chunks of data to create chunk embeddings (divided into chucks; p. 0047), wherein the chunk embeddings are represented as numerical vectors (vectorize chunks; p. 0025, 0047, 0060-0061, 0067);
storing the chunk embeddings in a vector database (vector database; p. 0061, 0064, 0067, 0074, 0084); and
generating, by a Large Language Model (LLM), a plurality of document content insights based on the plurality of chunks of data and the chunk embeddings (p. 0024-0026, 0047-0051, 0059-0061, 0083-0088), but does not specifically teach the numerical vectors are a mathematical representation of text in a high dimensional space.
Kershaw discloses a method comprising performing embeddings for the plurality of chunks of data to create chunk embeddings, wherein the chunk embeddings are represented as numerical vectors and the numerical vectors are a mathematical representation of text in a high dimensional space (p. 0053), to improve management.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to assist with analyzing chunks and create embedding.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Chen discloses a method wherein the plurality of document content insights includes at least one of legal insights, potential risks, potential opportunities, document obligations, document milestones, document deadlines, differences with other documents, differences with clauses in other documents, and suggested changes to the document (p. 0045, 0049-0052).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses a method wherein the identified document is a contract that includes a plurality of clauses (p. 0049-0051, 0064).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses a method wherein generating document content insights by the LLM includes analyzing the plurality of clauses (p. 0049-0051, 0064).
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses a method wherein generating document content insights by the LLM includes analyzing the plurality of clauses and at least one playbook (knowledge; p. 0045-0052).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses a method wherein the at least one playbook includes a structured and predefined set of clauses that are approved by a particular organization (insurance/company; p. 0045-0051).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Chen discloses a method wherein generating document content insights by the LLM includes analyzing the plurality of clauses to identify a plurality of activities associated with the plurality of clauses (breach, payments; p. 0045, 0049-0050, 0065-0065).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses a method further comprising clustering the plurality of clauses to generate a playbook (categorize; p. 0025, 0044-0045, 0055).
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses a method wherein the content insights may include at least one of inconsistencies in the document, inconsistencies with other similar documents, legal issues, potential risks, potential opportunities, obligations, milestones, or deadlines (p. 0049-0056).
Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses a method further comprising:
generating a notification associated with at least one of the content insights (feedback; p. 0070, 0077); and
communicating the notification to at least one user or system associated with the content insight (feedback; p. 0070, 0077).
Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses a method wherein the artificial intelligence engine is further configured to store the plurality of document content insights in the storage device (breach, payments; p. 0045, 0049-0050, 0065-0065).
Regarding claims 16-17 and 19, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth in the combination of claims 5-7.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Kershaw and in further view of Austin et al. (PGPUB 20240420012), hereinafter referenced as Austin.
Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Kershaw disclose a method as described above, but does not specifically teach wherein extracting information from the document includes performing optical character recognition on the document.
Austin discloses a method comprises extracting information from the document includes performing optical character recognition on the document (p. 0037), to assist with analyzing data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to assist with data extraction.
Regarding claim 3, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Austin discloses a method further comprising:
storing the extracted information from the document and the results of performing optical character recognition on the document in a data store (p. 0021, 0037-0038).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This information has been detailed in the PTO 892 attached (Notice of References Cited).
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 JAKIEDA R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30a-2:30p.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571.272.5551. 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.
/JAKIEDA R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657