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 responsive to Applicant's amendment filed on 1 October 2025. Applicant’s amendment on 1 October 2025 amended Claims 1, 9, and 15. Currently Claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are pending and have been examined. Claims 2, 10, and 16 have been canceled. The Examiner notes that the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner found the arguments regarding the prior art rejections to be persuasive and as such new art was applied necessitating a second non-final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 9-11 that “In revised Prong Two, the MPEP states that a claim which "integrates the judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." Further, if "[t]he claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, in which case the claim is not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and is eligible." MPEP 2106.04(d). In other words, when the "claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception," that claim should be determined to be patent-eligible. Therefore, the Present Application is directed to the practical application of suggesting a collaboration partner update a central collaboration system with rules that correlate with local document rejections. Once the central collaboration system is configured, it can reject future documents in the central collaboration system, avoiding the need for follow-on local analysis. This can be a fully automated process that reduces network traffic, and expedites processing within a complex, collaborative computing environment”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments in the Examiner notes that the Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but do not overcome the 101 rejection. The claims remain directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. With respect to Step 2A, Prong One: the claims are viewed to be directed to an abstract idea. Under the Step 2A, Prong One analysis, the claims are directed to abstract ideas falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" and "mental processes" categories identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Specifically, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of comparing business rule sets between systems to identify discrepancies and recommend synchronization a fundamental business practice of maintaining consistency in operational rules across a collaborative network.
The claim recites: (1) collecting and organizing data about document rejection types (both central and local), (2) comparing the two datasets to identify correlations, (3) analyzing the correlations against predetermined criteria, (4) identifying appropriate rules based on the analysis, and (5) recommending configuration changes. These steps describe mental processes comparing, analyzing, and identifying relationships between datasets that could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, albeit more slowly. The judicial exception is not merely involved in the claims; it is what the claims are directed to.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims do not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application. Applicant argues the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by reducing network traffic and expediting processing in collaborative computing environments. However, these arguments conflate improved business efficiency with improved computer functionality, which courts have consistently held insufficient for patent eligibility.
The reduction in network traffic and faster document rejection cited in paragraph [0020] of the specification result from implementing more efficient business rules earlier in a workflow, not from any improvement to computer technology itself. As the Federal Circuit explained in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., "we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas." The court further held that merely selecting information by content or source, or combining information through mathematical operations, does not make claims patent-eligible. Similarly, in SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, the Federal Circuit held that using a generic computer to perform statistical analysis and present results, even if providing a business advantage, does not amount to an inventive concept.
The problem identified in paragraph [0019] that "coordination and synchronization of central rules with local rules can be resource intensive and error prone" is a business and organizational challenge, not a technological problem unique to computers. Similar synchronization challenges existed before computers in maintaining consistency across distributed manual filing systems or organizational policies. The use of computers to address this business challenge more efficiently does not render the claims patent-eligible. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, (using computers to perform fundamental economic practices more efficiently is insufficient for eligibility).
Regarding the use of a "generative large language model," the claims merely invoke this technology as a generic tool to perform the comparison function. The claim does not recite any specific improvement to LLM technology, any particular LLM architecture, any novel training methodology, or any specific technical implementation that improves computer functionality. The claim language "prompting a generative large language model" describes conventional use of existing AI technology as a black box. Courts have consistently held that merely using existing technology, even cutting-edge technology, to perform abstract ideas does not confer patent eligibility. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), (using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas insufficient); BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc. (using database technology to implement abstract idea insufficient).
The additional steps added through amendment—receiving a configuration request, configuring the rule, receiving a document, and rejecting it based on the rule represent conventional post-solution activity and data gathering steps that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These steps describe routine use of standard computer functions (receiving data, storing configuration, applying rules) to implement the abstract idea, which is insufficient under Alice.
With respect to Step 2B it does not appear that there is an inventive concept. Even if the claims were considered directed to an abstract idea (which they are), the claims do not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea.
The "central collaboration system," "generative large language model," and conventional computer operations (generating data, extracting information, comparing, analyzing, receiving requests, configuring rules, and applying rules to documents) are all generic computer functions. The specification confirms this by describing the systems using generic computer components (processors, memory, networks) without any unconventional configuration or technical implementation. The LLM is invoked through conventional "prompting" without any specific claims to novel prompt engineering, training methodology, or technical architecture.
The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that merely using generic computer components to implement an abstract idea, even if novel as a business matter, is insufficient. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC. The claims here recite conventional use of computers to automate what is fundamentally a business process of rule synchronization.
The claims remain ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to abstract ideas without integration into a practical application or addition of an inventive concept. To overcome this rejection, Applicant could consider amendments that recite specific technological improvements to computer functionality (rather than business efficiency), specific unconventional implementations of the LLM or other components, or concrete technical solutions to technical problems, as exemplified by cases such as DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. The rejection is therefore maintained.
The Applicant argues on pages 11-14 that “Applicant notes that the recited claims are similar to the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, Example 34. In that example, claim 1 is eligible under step 2B because the claim recites a "non-generic combination of known elements, and more specifically 'the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user"' Example 35 (emphasis in original). Example 35 continues and asserts that the claim in Example 35 represents "an improvement in the technology of filtering content on the internet, because it offers 'both the benefits of a filter on the local computer, and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server."' Id.
As in Example 35, where the combination of steps are not directed to a judicial exception and are therefore eligible, the claimed solution presents a non-conventional combination of steps that operate to provide the benefits of "faster rejections" and "reduction of data transfer costs" as described above. Present Application at [0020]. Applicant submits that the amended claims, recite eligible subject matter. Similar to the various examples provided by the USPTO of how the combination of elements recited in the claim have been integrated into a practical application, the claimed element "applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception." MPEP 2106.04(d)”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments in the Examiner notes that the Applicant's reliance on Subject Matter Eligibility Example 34 is misplaced because the claims are materially distinguishable from that example in critical respects. Example 34 was found eligible because it recited a specific technological solution to a technological problem inherent in internet content filtering, whereas the present claims recite use of generic computer technology to implement a more efficient business process for rule synchronization.
In Example 34, the claims addressed a technical problem in internet filtering technology: how to achieve the granular control of client-side filtering while avoiding the maintenance burden on individual end-user computers. The claimed solution installing filtering software at the ISP server level with customizable user profiles represented an unconventional technical architecture that improved the filtering technology itself. Critically, Example 34 involved "a modification of the conventional functionality of Internet communication" that provided "a technical solution to a technical problem." The example explicitly notes that the claim "improves the performance of the computer system itself" and represents "an improvement to computer functionality."
In contrast, the present claims do not improve any computer functionality or modify how computers, networks, LLMs, or collaboration systems operate. Instead, they use existing, generic computer technology (collaboration systems, LLMs, rule engines) in conventional ways to implement a more efficient business workflow. The claims describe receiving rejection data, comparing datasets to find correlations, analyzing trends, and recommending rule configurations all of which are business process optimization steps performed using computers as tools.
The benefits identified in paragraph [0020] "faster rejections" and "reduction of data transfer costs" fundamentally differ from the technological improvements in Example 34. These benefits arise from implementing business rules earlier in a workflow (at the central system rather than waiting for local partner evaluation), which is a business process optimization, not a computer technology improvement. The "faster rejections" occur because documents are screened earlier in the business process flow, not because any computer component operates more quickly or efficiently. The "reduction of data transfer costs" is an economic benefit from avoiding unnecessary document transfers, not a reduction in network bandwidth usage through improved transmission technology or data compression.
By contrast, Example 34's benefits were inherently technological: the filtering system itself performed better by combining client-side filtering granularity with server-side maintenance efficiency. This represented an improvement to how the filtering technology functioned, not merely using filtering technology to achieve better business outcomes. The Federal Circuit has consistently distinguished between claims that improve computer technology itself and claims that use computers to achieve improved business results. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., (holding that claims to improved computer functionality are eligible, but generic computer implementation of abstract ideas are not).
Applicant further argued that the claims recite a "non-conventional combination of steps," but the specification contradicts this assertion. The specification describes the collaboration system, LLM, rule engines, and networking components using entirely generic terms and conventional computer technology. Paragraph [0032] describes the software as potentially written in "C, C++, Java, JavaScript, Visual Basic, assembler, Perl" and other conventional languages. The hardware is described as generic "processors," "memory," and "network" components. The LLM is invoked through conventional "prompting" without any specific novel prompt engineering, training methodology, architectural modification, or technical implementation details.
Example 34, by contrast, recited the specific technical implementation of installing filtering "at a specific location, remote from the end-users" a structural limitation defining an unconventional technical architecture. The present claims contain no comparable structural limitations or technical architecture that improves computer functionality. The steps of extracting data, comparing datasets, analyzing trends, and recommending configurations describe a logical business process, not a technical implementation.
In conclusion Example 34 exemplifies claims that improve computer technology itself through unconventional technical implementations. The present claims, however, use conventional computer technology as tools to implement an abstract business process of rule synchronization. The distinction is not semantic but substantive: Example 34 solved a technical problem with a technical solution, while the present claims solve a business problem (inefficient rule synchronization) with a business solution (automated correlation and recommendation) implemented on generic computers. This distinction is dispositive under controlling Federal Circuit precedent distinguishing technological improvements from business process automation. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., (claims directed to specific improvement to computer functionality eligible); Electric Power Group, (claims using computers to automate business processes ineligible). The rejection is therefore maintained.
The remaining Applicant's arguments filed 1 October 2025 have been fully considered and were found to be persuasive and as such necessitated the application of new prior art to address the arguments.
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, 3-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-15 and 17-20 as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-15 and 17-20 is/are directed to the abstract idea of comparing and analyzing data in order to configure a collaboration system using rules. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claim(s) (1, 3-9, 11-15 and 17-20) is/are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (from the January 2019 §101 Examination Guidelines), claim(s) (1 and 3-8) is/are directed to a method, claim(s) (9 and 11-14) is/ are directed to a system and claims(s) (15 and 17-20) is/are directed to a computer readable medium, and therefore the claims recites a series of steps and, therefore the claims are viewed as falling in statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental process. Specifically, the independent claims 1, 9 and 15 recite a mental process as drafted, the claim recites the limitation of comparing and analyzing data in order to configure a collaboration system using rules which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for a processor language, the claim encompasses the user manually comparing and analyzing data about collaboration system using rules. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. It has been established by ongoing guidance that claims that contain a generic processor are still viewed as mental process when they contain limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, however this is different for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (network monitoring, data encryption for communication, and rendering images). Therefore, these limitations are viewed a mental process. Additionally, with regard to the instant application the Examiner has reviewed the disclosure and determined that the recited claim limitations is described as a concept can be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of a pen and paper, and thus it is viewed that the applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, 2) in a computer environment or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, and therefore is considered to recite a mental process.
Note to the Applicant per the MPEP 2106.05(a). The MPEP 2106.05(a) sets forth a test that distills the relevant case law to aid in examination, and does not attempt to articulate each and every decision. As further explained in the 2019 PEG, the Office has shifted its approach from the case-comparison approach in determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea and instead uses enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent. By grouping the abstract ideas, the 2019 PEG shifts examiners’ focus from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types. In sum, the 2019 PEG synthesizes the holdings of various court decisions to facilitate examination.
Step 2A Prong 2
Specifically, the determined judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and additionally that data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity (including post solution activity).
The claim recites the additional element(s): that a processor is used to perform the comparing, analyzing, and identifying steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (comparing and analyzing data in order to configure a collaboration system using rules). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional element(s): generating master data, extracting information, providing insight performs the comparing, analyzing, identifying, providing, receiving, configuring, receiving, and rejecting steps. The generating, extracting, providing, analyzing, identifying, receiving, and rejecting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of managing data for use in the comparing, analyzing, and identifying steps), and amounts to mere data management, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor that performs the comparing, analyzing and identifying steps are also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the comparing, analyzing, and identifying steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor).
The Examiner has further determined that the claims as a whole does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in order to provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. It has been determined that based on the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. It has not been provided clearly in the disclosure that the alleged improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, but is instead in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore does not improve the technology. Second, in the instance, which in this case it is not clear that the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must not reflect the disclosed improvement (the claims must include components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification).
Note to the Applicant from the October 2019 Guidance: Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgment on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. For example, in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an applicant could submit a declaration under § 1.132 providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.
For further clarification the Examiner points out that the claim(s) 1-20 recite(s) generating, extracting information, comparing the information, analyzing categories, identifying a rule, providing insight, receiving a request, configuring the first transaction, receiving and rejecting which are viewed as an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of a computer for generating, extracting, comparing, analyzing, identifying, providing, receiving, configuring, receiving, and rejecting which is the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea (comparing and analyzing data in order to configure a collaboration system using rules) in the manner of “apply it”.
Thus, the claims recites an abstract idea directed to a mental process (i.e. comparing and analyzing data in order to configure a collaboration system using rules). Using a computer to generate, extract, compare, analyze, identify, and provide the data resulting from this kind of mental process merely implements the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it” and does not provide 'something more' to make the claimed invention patent eligible. The claimed limitations of a computing device is not constraining the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and do not provide significantly more.
comparing and analyzing data in order to configure a collaboration system using rules would clearly be to a mental activity that a company would go through in order to manage the collaboration of data. The specification makes it clear that the claimed invention is directed to the mental activity data gathering and data analysis to determine how to manage the collaboration of data:
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’.
The dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies.
Claims 5 and 13 recite limitations which further limit the claimed analysis of data.
Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, and 17 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed insignificantly extra solution activity.
Using a computer to perform the data processing as claimed is merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it” and does not provide significantly more. Additionally with respect to the Berkheimer the Examiner points out that the steps of the claim are viewed to be to nothing more than spell out what it means to apply it on a computer and cannot confer patent-eligibility as there are no additional limitations beyond applying an abstract idea, restricted to a computer. As the claims are merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “Apply It” the need for a Berkheimer analysis does not apply and is not required with respect to the currently filed claims the implementing steps can be found in Eberstadt which discloses how the claims alone and in combination are viewed to be well understood, routine and conventional based on point 3 of the Berkheimer memo and subsequent evidence, complying with and providing evidence.
Claims 6-8, 14, and 18-20 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed non-functional data labels.
Thus, the problem the claimed invention is directed to answering the question based on gathered and analyzed information about the collaboration of documents between users. This is not a technical or technological problem but is rather in the realm of business data management and therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. This is the case because in order for the claims to be viewed as significantly more the claims must incorporate the integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly. Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more. Additionally, another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. "[T]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines. All together the above analysis shows there is not improvement in computer functionality, or improvement to any other technology or technical field. The claim is ineligible.
Additionally, with respect to the Berkheimer as noted above the same analysis applies to the 2B where the claims are viewed as applying it and as such no further analysis is required. However, with respect to the current claims generating, extracting, identifying, providing, receiving, configuring, receiving, and rejecting that are viewed as extra solution or post solution activity the Examiner notes that the claims are viewed as well-understood, routine, and conventional because a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). An appropriate publication such as the currently cited prior art O’Malley provides those extra solution activities and is viewed as a form of publication which also includes a book, manual, review article, or other source that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry. The claim is ineligible.
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’. Specifically, the dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies of the independent claims.
With respect to the legal concept of prima facie case being a procedural tool of patent examination, which allocates the burdens going forward between the examiner and the applicant. MPEP § 2106.07 discusses the requirements of a prima facie case of ineligibility. In particular, the initial burden was on the Examiner and believed to be properly provided as to explain why the claim(s) are ineligible for patenting because of the above provided rejection which clearly and specifically points out in accordance with properly providing the requirement satisfying the initial burden of proof based on the Guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the burden now shifts to the applicant.
Therefore, based on the above analysis as conducted based on the Guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office the claims are viewed as a court recognized abstract idea, are viewed as a judicial exception, does not integrate the claims into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept, therefore the claims are ineligible.
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 may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, 3-9, 11-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Malley (U.S. Patent 12,094,018 B1) in view of Gracey et al. (U.S. Patent 10,798,180 B1) (hereafter Gracey) in further view of Dasdan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0160833 A1) (hereafter Dasdan).
Referring to Claim 1, O’Malley teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
extracting, for a first collaboration partner, local rejection information of documents rejected by the first collaboration partner the documents forwarded to the first collaboration partner by the central collaboration system, wherein the local rejection information comprises local rejection categories and corresponding document fields (see; col. 200, lines(48-63) of O’Malley teaches a collaboration method used for extracting input and documents completed or partial completed by another party, col. 233, line (5) – col. 234, line (17) where data includes characteristics of the data (i.e. document field), col. 148, lines (21-37) data statistics are compared including rejection types).
comparing the local rejection information to the collaboration system master data by prompting a generative large language model, wherein the comparing includes matching at least some of the local rejection categories and document fields in the local rejection information to corresponding central document rejection categories and document fields in the collaboration system master data to identify correlated local rejection categories that are correlated to a corresponding central document rejection category (see; col. 407, line (40) col. 408, line (11) of O’Malley teaches an example of language being compared to address conflicts and redactions, col. 148, lines (21-37) including data statistics that are compared including rejection types, col. 47, lines (45-53) that all interacts with a central repository for interacting with the documents).
analyzing the correlated local rejection categories against at least one predetermined trend rule (see; col. 236, lines (4-40) of O’Malley teaches analyzing the document to address upended, modified or reversals (i.e. rejected) changes to a document based on trends established by the knowledge management system for the collaboration of documents).
in response to determining that a first correlated local rejection category satisfies a first predetermined trend rule (see; col. 208, lines (19-40) of O’Malley teaches determining based on a delineated categories that provide an understanding of what would be accepted or not accepted (i.e. rejected), col. 218, lines (12-43) where the system utilizes trends and patterns).
identifying a first transaction rule for the central collaboration system that is mapped to a central document rejection category that is correlated to the first correlated local rejection category (see; col. 208, lines (19-40) of O’Malley teaches identifying an accepted or not accepted (i.e. rejected) document based on a comparison to correlated data content (i.e. central data), col. 210, lines (4-33) which includes mapping to the stored data and adding or removing data content as necessary (i.e. reject)).
providing, to the first collaboration partner, a rejection insight corresponding to the first predetermined trend rule along with a recommendation for the first collaboration partner to configure the first transaction rule in the central collaboration system (see; col. 109, lines (38-47) of O’Malley teaches getting peer or expert feedback and provide an insight using the IPACE, col. 208, lines (19-40) then identifying an accepted or not accepted (i.e. rejected) document based on a comparison to correlated data content (i.e. central data)).
O’Malley does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Gracey teaches generating, in a central collaboration system that manages collaborations between different collaboration partners, collaboration system master data that describes central document rejection types for rejections of documents by the central collaboration system for documents provided by collaboration partners to the central collaboration system (see; Abstract of Gracey teaches collaboration system that manages collaboration between at least two people, col. 15, lines (37-49) centralized database, col. 11, line (55) – 12, line (7) where the collaborative content provides rejection data related to the review).
The Examiner notes that O’Malley teaches similar to the instant application teaches collaborations of data, content and correlations for evaluating, predicting and ascertaining metrics. Specifically, O’Malley discloses the authorizing contributions from authorized participants are electronically stored, evaluated based on condition and it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Gracey teaches optimizing information collaboration and as it is comparable in certain respects to O’Malley which collaborations of data, content and correlations for evaluating, predicting and ascertaining metrics as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
O’Malley discloses the authorizing contributions from authorized participants are electronically stored, evaluated based on condition. However, O’Malley fails to disclose generating, in a central collaboration system that manages collaborations between different collaboration partners, collaboration system master data that describes central document rejection types for central rejections of documents by the central collaboration system of documents provided by collaboration partners to the central collaboration system.
Gracey discloses generating, in a central collaboration system that manages collaborations between different collaboration partners, collaboration system master data that describes central document rejection types for central rejections of documents by the central collaboration system of documents provided by collaboration partners to the central collaboration system.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of O’Malley the generating, in a central collaboration system that manages collaborations between different collaboration partners, collaboration system master data that describes central document rejection types for central rejections of documents by the central collaboration system of documents provided by collaboration partners to the central collaboration system as taught by Gracey since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, O’Malley, and Gracey teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to maximize the utilization of resource using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
O’Malley in view of Gracey does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Dasdan teaches receiving, after providing the recommendation to the first collaboration partner, a request from the first collaboration partner to configure the first transaction rule;
833 [0021] of Dasdan teaches the identifying and configuring of the tasks to generate automations for actions including the management of documents, par. [0031] where the identifying includes a recommendation to modifications to the page or link to content (i.e. after recommendations configure the transaction rule), and
configuring the first transaction rule in the central collaboration system for the first
collaboration partner (see; par. [0021] of Dasdan teaches the identifying and configuring of the tasks to generate automations for actions including the management of documents), and
receiving, after the first transaction rule has been configured for the first
collaboration partner in the central collaboration system, a first document from a second
collaboration partner that is targeted to the first collaboration partner (see; par. [0066]-[0068] of Dasdan teaches the receiving of a transaction rule from a different user to modify the rule to handle the editing of documents), and
rejecting, in the central collaboration system, the first document based on the first
transaction rule (see; par. [0006] of Dasdan teaches a new document, par. [0093] where the new content item is analyzed and determined if an additional new content item is needed).
The Examiner notes that O’Malley teaches similar to the instant application teaches collaborations of data, content and correlations for evaluating, predicting and ascertaining metrics. Specifically, O’Malley discloses the authorizing contributions from authorized participants are electronically stored, evaluated based on condition and it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Gracey teaches optimizing information collaboration and as it is comparable in certain respects to O’Malley which collaborations of data, content and correlations for evaluating, predicting and ascertaining metrics as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Dasdan teaches generating automations for organizing and displaying items in a collaboration platform and as it is comparable in certain respects to O’Malley and Gracey which collaborations of data, content and correlations for evaluating, predicting and ascertaining metrics as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
O’Malley and Gracey discloses the authorizing contributions from authorized participants are electronically stored, evaluated based on condition. However, O’Malley and Gracey fails to disclose receiving, after providing the recommendation to the first collaboration partner, a request from the first collaboration partner to configure the first transaction rule, configuring the first transaction rule in the central collaboration system for the first collaboration partner, receiving, after the first transaction rule has been configured for the first, collaboration partner in the central collaboration system, a first document from a second collaboration partner that is targeted to the first collaboration partner, and rejecting, in the central collaboration system, the first document based on the first transaction rule.
Dasdan discloses receiving, after providing the recommendation to the first collaboration partner, a request from the first collaboration partner to configure the first transaction rule, configuring the first transaction rule in the central collaboration system for the first collaboration partner, receiving, after the first transaction rule has been configured for the first, collaboration partner in the central collaboration system, a first document from a second collaboration partner that is targeted to the first collaboration partner, and rejecting, in the central collaboration system, the first document based on the first transaction rule.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of O’Malley and Gracey the receiving, after providing the recommendation to the first collaboration partner, a request from the first collaboration partner to configure the first transaction rule, configuring the first transaction rule in the central collaboration system for the first collaboration partner, receiving, after the first transaction rule has been configured for the first, collaboration partner in the central collaboration system, a first document from a second collaboration partner that is targeted to the first collaboration partner, and rejecting, in the central collaboration system, the first document based on the first transaction rule as taught by Dasdan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, O’Malley, Gracey, and Dasdan teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to maximize the utilization of resource using associated tasks and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 3, see discussion of claim 1 above, while O’Malley in view of Gracey in further view of Dasdan teaches the method above, O’Malley further discloses a method having the limitations of:
generating the collaboration system master data comprises prompting a generative large language model to generate the collaboration system master data (see; col. 87, line (17-35) of O’Malley teaches utilizing a natural language processing as part of the collaboration system, col. 2, lines (13-22) where data can then be extracted for use).
Referring to Claim 4, see discussion of claim 1 above, while O’Malley in view of Gracey in further view of Dasdan teaches the method above, O’Malley further discloses a method having the limitations of:
extracting the local rejection information comprises prompting a generative large language model to extract the local rejection information (see; col. 2, lines (13-22) of O’Malley teaches the extraction of data, col. 260, lines (12-21) where the extraction algorithm pulls information from the database to evaluate the documents (i.e. rejection information)).
Referring to Claim 5, see discussion of claim 1 above, while O’Malley in view of Gracey in further view of Dasdan teaches the method above, O’Malley further discloses a method having the limitations of:
the collaboration system master data maps central rejection categories and document fields to transaction rules in the central collaboration system (see; col. 34, lines (21-28) of O’Malley teaches mapping information from data regarding value sets (i.e. categories) and data stored in the repository).
Referring to Claim 6, see discussion of claim 1 above, while O’Malley in view of Gracey in further view of Dasdan teaches the method above, O’Malley further discloses a method having the limitations of:
the first transaction rule is a default rule that is configured for all collaboration partners with which the first collaboration partner collaborates (see; col. 57, lines (22-35) of O’Malley teaches a default rule for the collaboration process).
Referring to Claim 7, see discussion of claim 1 above, while O’Malley in view of Gracey in further view of Dasdan teaches the method above, O’Malley further discloses a method having the limitations of:
the first transaction rule is a group rule that is configured for a particular group of collaboration partners with which the first collaboration partner collaborates (see; col. 57, lines (22-67) of O’Malley teaches an example of the default rule for the management of documents between the group of collaborators).
Referring to Claim 8, see discussion of claim 1 above, while O’Malley in view of Gracey in further view of Dasdan teaches the method above, O’Malley further discloses a method having the limitations of:
the first transaction rule is a geographic rule that is configured for all collaboration partners of a particular geographic area with which the first collaboration partner collaborates (see; col. 330, lines (19-38) of O’Malley teaches calculations and analysis done by the collaborative system taking into account several factors including geographical location which is tracked for future filings managed through the collaboration system).
Referring to Claim 9, O’Malley in view of Gracey in further view of Dasdan teaches a system. Claim 9 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 9 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1, except for the following noted exception.
One or more computer (see; Figure 1b of O’Malley teaches a processor).
Referring to Claim 11, see discussion of claim 9 above, while O’Malley in view of Gracey in further view of Dasdan teaches the system above Claim 11 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 3, Claim 11 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 3.
Referring to Claim 12, see discussion of claim 9 above, while O’Malley in view of Gracey in further view of Dasdan teaches the system above Claim 12 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 4, Claim 12 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 4.
Referring to Claim 13, see discussion of claim 9 above, while O’Malley in view of Gracey in further view of Dasdan teaches the system above Claim 13 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 5, Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 5.
Referring to Claim 14, see discussion of claim 9 above, while O’Malley in view of Gracey in further view of Dasdan teaches the system above Claim 14 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 6, Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 6.
Referring to Claim 15, O’Malley in view of Gracey in further view of Dasdan teaches a computer program product encoded on a non-transitory storage medium. Claim 15 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1.
Referring to Claim 17, see discussion of claim 15 above, while O’Malley in view of Gracey in further view of Dasdan teaches a computer program product encoded on a non-transitory storage medium above Claim 17 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 4, Claim 17 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 4.
Referring to Claim 18, see discussion of claim 15 above, while O’Malley in view of Gracey in further view of Dasdan teaches a computer program product encoded on a non-transitory storage medium above Claim 18 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 6, Claim 18 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 6.
Referring to Claim 19, see discussion of claim 15 above, while O’Malley in view of Gracey in further view of Dasdan teaches a computer program product encoded on a non-transitory storage medium above Claim 19 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 7, Claim 19 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 7.
Referring to Claim 20, see discussion of claim 15 above, while O’Malley in view of Gracey in further view of Dasdan teaches a computer program product encoded on a non-transitory storage medium above Claim 20 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 8, Claim 20 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gupta et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0214384 A1) discloses handling collaboration and governance activities throughout the lifecycle of auto-generated content objects.
Roger et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0132651 A1) discloses sensitive information handling on a collaboration system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571 272-6737. 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.
/S.S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3623
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625