DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 12/17/23, wherein:
Claims 1-27 are currently pending.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Applications No. 13/935425, 14/296287, and 16/950473, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. At least claims 1, 8, and 14 do not find support in the prior-filed applications for at least the limitations, “assigning at least one track to said designation, wherein said at least one track corresponds to a stage of said designation procedure,” and at least claim 14 does not find support in the prior-filed applications for at least the limitation, “applying an artificial intelligence algorithm to said designation, wherein said artificial intelligence algorithm is configured to suggest updates to said designation.”
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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 8, and 14 recites a method and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Claim 14 is used as an exemplary claim.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The following underlined limitations identify the abstract limitations which are considered certain methods of organizing human activity
continuously gathering intelligence comprising at least one user's activity and data in at least one transcript;
initiating designation procedure, wherein said at least one user can select said excerpt that said at least one user wants to said designate, wherein said designation procedure further comprises;
identifying an excerpt in said at least one transcript;
assigning at least one party to said designation;
assigning a designation type to said designation; and
assigning at least one track to said designation, wherein said at least one track corresponds to a stage of said designation procedure; and
applying an artificial intelligence algorithm to said designation, wherein said artificial intelligence algorithm is configured to suggest updates to said designation
These limitations constitute managing legal documents used in legal proceedings, which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1 and 8 do not recite any additional elements. However, even assuming, arguendo, claims 1 and 8 recite that the steps are performed by a computer (as provided in the Specification at [0035]), and therefore, that claims 1 and 8 recite the additional element of a computer, the computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the gathering limitation may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The limitations reciting “applying an artificial intelligence algorithm to said designation, wherein said artificial intelligence algorithm is configured to suggest updates to said designation” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the computers are invoked merely as a tool to perform existing processes (“applying an artificial intelligence algorithm to said designation, wherein said artificial intelligence algorithm is configured to suggest updates to said designation”). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the steps of the abstract idea amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the gathering limitation) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-27 merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 8, and 14 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 1; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 refers to "applying an artificial intelligence algorithm to said designation, wherein said artificial intelligence algorithm is configured to suggest updates to said designation," but it is unclear how this is accomplished. Claims 20-27 also include similar features which indicate that the “artificial intelligence algorithm is configured” to perform a step, but how the artificial intelligence algorithm performs such a step is unclear. This appears to be an end result without an explanation of how to accomplish this step. The specification does not describe how this is done, but provides only that the artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm is applied. However, there are no details about how the AI algorithm would do this, such as the type of algorithm used, how it would be trained, or any other details.
When examining computer implemented, functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. Specifically, if one skilled in the art would know how to program the disclosed computer to perform the necessary steps described in the specification to achieve the claimed function and the inventor was in possession of that knowledge, the written description requirement would be satisfied. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under § 112, ¶ 1 for lack of written description must be made. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP §2161.01–2163.07(b). In this case, applicant’s specification does not disclose an algorithm for performing the function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.
Claims 14-27 refer to using an AI algorithm to accomplish the claimed steps. At most, the specification discloses generic computers and processors. However, for a specific function, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. It is not sufficient that one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of writing the software/program to achieve the claimed function. There must be an explanation of how the computer or component performs the claimed function. Here, the claimed functions appear to be specific functions that require a special purpose computer to perform, and the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure and algorithm required to perform the claimed functions. As such, applicant has not met the requirements of 35 USC §112, first paragraph.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-7 and 9-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 14-27, the claims refer to using a computer to accomplish the claimed steps. However, the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function. Without describing the computer and the algorithm, potential infringers cannot be sure whether they are infringing the claims or not.
With respect to claims 3-7, 9-13, and 15-27, the preambles of the claims are confusing, as it is not clear if the entirety of the independent claim on which the claims depend, is being included in the dependent claim. For example, claim 3 states that it is directed to “the designation procedure of claim 1.” It is not clear if claim 3 is only attempting to include the claim limitation of claim 1 which is directed to the designation procedure, or if the entirety of claim 1 is included in claim 3. Claim 4 refers only to the “designation” of claim 1, which is even more confusing, as claim 1 refers to a “designation procedure” and not just to a designation. The remaining claims follow a similar pattern. Examiner suggests Applicant amend the claims to reflect that the rejected claims are further modifying the independent claim. For example, claim 3 should indicate that it is directed to the method of claim 1 before including the additional limitations of claim 3.
Notice
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Madhava et al. (US 20130246941).
Referring to claim 1:
Madhava discloses a method for managing testimony in legal proceedings comprising: continuously gathering intelligence comprising at least one user's activity and data in at least one transcript {Madhava [0051][0057] [0058][0064][0066][0069]; For example, a Date Case Last Modified column 218 may be provided that includes information about when a specific case 210 was last modified [0057] and To access the record of these changes, history box 80 also comprises activity history link 812, which allows users to view the past activity that has been logged by application 30 [0064] and Deposition window 900 may also comprise history box 914, which includes information such as when and by whom deposition 60b was added to information management system 10. History box 914 may also comprise activity history link 920, which, like history link 812, allows users to view the past activity that has been logged by to application 30 [0066]};
initiating designation procedure, wherein said at least one user can identify said excerpt in said at least one transcript that said at least one user wants to designate, wherein said designation procedure further comprises {Madhava [0099][0103]; Once highlighted, the user can click the Add Designation button (not shown) in order to copy and transfer the designated portions to application 30 [0099] and For example, an edit link 1008 may be provided under each respective Volume Indicator 1006 that allows the user to designate, highlight or otherwise edit certain portions of a deposition transcript [0103]};
assigning at least one party to said designation {Madhava [0105]; the user may designate a specific portion of deposition transcript in any manner, such as by party, by action, by topic, etc. [0105]}; assigning a designation type to said designation {Madhava [0085]; Find volume--often, transcripts are rather lengthy, and must be broken into multiple volumes [0085] where the volume is the designation type}; and assigning at least one track to said designation, wherein said at least one track corresponds to a stage of said designation procedure {Madhava [0069]; The Exhibit Number window 320 contains an exhibit record 322 for a specific exhibit 60a and may include information, such as the exhibit number, the status of the exhibit, i.e., "Exchanged" or "Not Exchanged" [0069]}.
Referring to claim 2:
Madhava discloses linking said designations together, wherein said at least one user can link said designations together, wherein linking said designations together forms a designation sequence {Madhava [0046]; In this manner, the host computer will tell each virtual computer to take the next available page and Bates stamp it. On a different occasion, the smallest block of information that may be processed is by document, rather than by page. In this instance, the host computer will tell each virtual server to process the next available document [0046] where Bates numbers link the documents by numbering all the pages of all the documents in sequence with a unique number}.
Referring to claim 3:
Madhava discloses wherein said designation is configured to be importable {Madhava [0046][0075][0076][0099]; The manner in which the documents are uploaded or downloaded is well known, and may include uploading to a web server through a browser by way of SSL [0046]}.
Referring to claim 4:
Madhava discloses wherein said designation includes video clips {Madhava [0103][0107][0110]; Indicator 1006 that allows the user to designate, highlight or otherwise edit certain portions of a deposition transcript, as well as synchronize a video deposition with its written portion [0103]}.
Referring to claim 5:
Madhava discloses wherein said designation is configured to be exportable, wherein said video clips in said designation are exportable {Madhava [0051][0075][0110]; the graphical user interface 50 may allow users to access, copy, save, export or send data or files by using standard Windows.RTM. file transfer functions [0051] and As is known in the art, video depositions may be stored in any number of known formats, such as .wmv, .mp4, mpeg, .swf, etc. [0110]}.
Referring to claim 6:
Madhava discloses wherein a pattern is assigned to said party {Madhava [0083]; Parser 5000 reviews the metadata, and searches several different patterns for name recognition on the cover page of the transcript [0083]}.
Referring to claim 7:
Madhava discloses wherein a pattern is assigned to said designation type {Madhava [0083][0085]; Parser 5000 may search the transcript, or just the first page, and compare the information found with several patterns for volume recognition that are programmed into parser 5000 [0085]}.
Referring to claim 8:
Claim 8 is rejected for similar reasons as claims 1 and 2.
Referring to claim 9:
Claim 9 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4.
Referring to claim 10:
Claim 10 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 6.
Referring to claim 11:
Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 7.
Referring to claim 12:
Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 3.
Referring to claim 13:
Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 5.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 14-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madhava et al. (US 20130246941), in view of Grimm (US 20160004679), and further in view of Okerlund ‘322 et al. (US 20250272322).
Referring to claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1, with the following additions:
Madhava discloses a system for information management (abstract). Madhava does not disclose suggest updates to said designation.
However, Grimm discloses a similar system for generating designations for a deposition testimony transcript (abstract). Grimm discloses suggest updates to said designation {Grimm [0054][0062][0063][0108][0137] and Fig. 19B; The user interface may further prompt the user to select whether to remove overlap, and then, after the user selects whether to remove overlap, ask the user whether to combine adjacent designations (or vice versa). In response to the user selecting to combine designations, the interface may ask the user whether to combine by page or by line, and a corresponding selection may be received [0062] where the suggestions include the option to remove overlap, and then whether to combine by page or by line}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Madhava to incorporate suggesting updates as taught by Grimm because this would provide a manner for automating update of designations (Grimm [0054][0108]), thus aiding the user by automatically removing overlap or combining adjacent designations.
Madhava, as modified by Grimm, discloses a system for information management (abstract). Madhava, as modified by Grimm, does not disclose applying an artificial intelligence algorithm to said designation.
However, Okerlund ‘322 discloses a similar system for document preparation, including preparing depositions (abstract [0002][0003]). Okerlund ‘322 discloses applying an artificial intelligence algorithm to said designation {Okerlund ‘322 [0049][0060]-[0066][0091]; the feature generation engine 150 includes a feature extraction model that processes the input data to generate a feature vector for each document. The feature vector encodes important features in the input data. The feature extraction model can be a learnable model such as a regression model or a neural network [0066]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Madhava and Grimm to incorporate applying an artificial intelligence algorithm as taught by Okerlund ‘322 because this would provide a manner for generating a feature vector for each document (Okerlund ‘322 [0066]), thus aiding the user by using machine learning techniques to improve the quality of the information provided to the user.
Referring to claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 4.
Referring to claim 16:
Claim 16 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 6.
Referring to claim 17:
Claim 17 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 7.
Referring to claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 3.
Referring to claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 5.
Referring to claim 20:
Madhava, as modified by Grimm and Okerlund ‘322, discloses wherein said artificial intelligence algorithm is configured to recommend said testimony said user should designate based on preexisting factors stored within said algorithm via artificial intelligence algorithm {Okerlund ‘322 [0051]-[0053][0083][0087]; receive a user input to designate one or more sub-portions of the transcript, and utilize that content as an input into searches of one or more databases [0051] and some databases having been pre-configured to support key word searches, others configured to search for conceptually or semantically related content (as examples) or searched using metadata that is related to the content of the real time speech of a deponent during a legal proceeding, such as a deposition, deposition preparation session, or court room testimony [0053] where the returned content is recommended and the system can utilize information from prior cases to improve the predictive algorithms of the present system for use in a currently pending case. For example, the system can train a “Class Specific” Training Module, such as a Patent Litigation training module, using a training set of data from past intellectual property litigation matters [0087]}.
Referring to claim 21:
Madhava, as modified by Grimm and Okerlund ‘322, discloses wherein said artificial intelligence algorithm is configured to identify whether said designation is complete, wherein said designation is compared to said transcript to determine completeness of said designation via said artificial intelligence algorithm {Grimm [0060]-[0063][0127] and Fig. 4; a designation may be invalid because a page number is out of range as at invalid designation 406 [0060] and the one or more computer processors may quarantine errors in the designations [0063] where the errors that are quarantined indicate incompleteness of said designation}.
Referring to claim 22:
Madhava, as modified by Grimm and Okerlund ‘322, discloses wherein said artificial intelligence algorithm is configured to make a recommendation on completing said designation {Grimm [0060]-[0063][0127] and Fig. 4; it is envisioned that the interface may inform the user of the number of lines per page in the textual transcript [0062]}.
Referring to claim 23:
Madhava, as modified by Grimm and Okerlund ‘322, discloses wherein said artificial intelligence algorithm is configured to suggest linking said designations together, wherein said linking said designations together forms a designation sequence via said artificial intelligence algorithm {Madhava [0046]; In this manner, the host computer will tell each virtual computer to take the next available page and Bates stamp it. On a different occasion, the smallest block of information that may be processed is by document, rather than by page. In this instance, the host computer will tell each virtual server to process the next available document [0046] where Bates numbers link the documents by numbering all the pages of all the documents in sequence with a unique number}.
Referring to claim 24:
Madhava, as modified by Grimm and Okerlund ‘322, discloses wherein said artificial intelligence algorithm is configured to identify objections made by said at least one party in said transcript via said artificial intelligence algorithm {Grimm [0054][0134][0137] and Fig. 19B; the designation server 1710 may automatically check the designation entries for objections, which may be noted by placing an indicator (e.g., [OBJ]) adjacent any designations that contain objections, as shown in FIG. 19B at 1924 [0137]}.
Referring to claim 26:
Madhava, as modified by Grimm and Okerlund ’322, does not disclose wherein said artificial intelligence algorithm is configured to report to said at least one user an indication of strength of said designation in event of said objection.
However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. MPEP 2111.04. In this case, the limitation “in event of said objection” indicates that the steps of “reporting to said at least one user an indication of strength of said designation” are not required to be performed. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim is that the limitation does not occur and Examiner does not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the method steps of claim 26.
Claims 25 & 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madhava et al. (US 20130246941), in view of Grimm (US 20160004679), in view of Okerlund ‘322 et al. (US 20250272322), and further in view of Okerlund ‘945 et al. (US 20230273945).
Referring to claim 25:
Madhava, as modified by Grimm and Okerlund ‘322, discloses a system for information management (abstract). Madhava, as modified by Grimm and Okerlund ‘322, does not disclose wherein said artificial intelligence algorithm is configured to resolve an identified objection by said at least one party in said transcript via said artificial intelligence algorithm.
However, Okerlund ‘945 discloses a similar system for deposition proceedings (abstract). Okerlund ‘945 discloses wherein said artificial intelligence algorithm is configured to resolve an identified objection by said at least one party in said transcript via said artificial intelligence algorithm {Okerlund ‘945 [0165][0194]; the ALPA may be capable of performing analysis on the real time transcript to provide suggestions to one or more parties . . . it may also be used to identify for the attorney questioning a witness that their question is potentially objectionable and thus prompt them to state it in a non-leading form [0194]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Madhava, Grimm, and Okerlund ‘322 to incorporate resolving an identified objection as taught by Okerlund ‘945 because this would provide a manner for prompting an attorney to state a question in a non-leading form in order to avoid an objection (Okerlund ‘945 [0194]), thus assisting the user in avoiding objectionable questions.
Referring to claim 27:
Madhava, as modified by Grimm and Okerlund ‘322, discloses a system for information management (abstract). Madhava, as modified by Grimm and Okerlund ‘322, does not disclose wherein said artificial intelligence algorithm is configured to suggest said designation objections.
However, Okerlund ‘945 discloses a similar system for deposition proceedings (abstract). Okerlund ‘945 discloses wherein said artificial intelligence algorithm is configured to suggest said designation objections {Okerlund ‘945 [0194]; For example, a deposition suggestion module may receive or monitors the transcription (as displayed on the user interface) and is configured to recognize the presence of terms that may give rise to an objection (e.g., leading question, etc.). For example, analysis of the real time transcript with respect to a term “You told Norman that you would never deliver the order on time, didn't you?” may be flagged as potentially leading because of the phrase “didn't you” [0194]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Madhava, Grimm, and Okerlund ‘322 to incorporate suggesting said designation objections as taught by Okerlund ‘945 because this would provide a manner for flagging objections (Okerlund ‘945 [0194]), thus aiding the user in identifying objections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626