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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on September 12, 2025, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a sale support apparatus. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites a sale support apparatus for predicting a result of a business negotiation. The claim recites the steps: an obtaining process that obtains a first document set including one or more first documents in each of which contents of a first business negotiation are described in a natural language; an identification process that refers, for each of multiple second business negotiations that are other than the first business negotiation, a second document set in which contents of the multiple second business negotiations are described in a natural language, and identifies a second business negotiation that is similar to the first business negotiation from among the second business negotiations, on the basis of a degree of similarity between the first document set and the second document set, wherein, in the identification process, calculate the degree of similarity between the first document set and a set of the one or more newer second documents by calculating an average value of inter-work distances of all combinations of first words…, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites the steps: obtains a first document set including one or more first documents in each of which contents of a first business negotiation are described in a natural language, refers to a second document set in which contents of the second business negotiation are described in a natural language, and identifies a second business negotiation that is similar to the first business negotiation…, and calculate the degree of similarity between the first document set and a set of the one or more newer second documents by calculating an average value of inter-word distances of all combinations of first words included in the first document and second words including in the set of the one or more newer second documents, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “a least one processor”, “a storage device storing a second document set”, “wherein the first document set includes multiple first documents stored on a time-series basis”, “wherein the second document set includes multiple second document stored on a time-series basis.”
The additional elements “a storage device storing a second document set”, “wherein the first document set includes multiple first documents stored on a time-series basis”, “wherein the second document set includes multiple second document stored on a time-series basis” are mere data gathering and storing recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and storing, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and storing. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvements to the technology, improvements to the functioning of the computer, they just merely used as general means for gathering and storing data.
Further, the claim also recites that the steps of: a storage device storing a second document set”, “wherein the first document set includes multiple first documents stored on a time-series basis”, “wherein the second document set includes multiple second document stored on a time-series basis; obtains a first document set including one or more first documents…; identifies a second business negotiation that is similar to the first business negotiation from among the second business negotiations…; and calculate the degree of similarity between the first document set and a set of the one or more newer second documents by calculating an average value of inter-work distances of all combinations of first words, are performed by a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality. In the limitations “a storage device storing a second document set”, “wherein the first document set includes multiple first documents stored on a time-series basis”, “wherein the second document set includes multiple second document stored on a time-series basis”, the processor is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering and storing data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations, “obtains a first document set including one or more first documents…; identifies a second business negotiation that is similar to the first business negotiation from among the second business negotiations…; and calculate the degree of similarity between the first document set and a set of the one or more newer second documents by calculating an average value of inter-work distances of all combinations of first words”, the processor is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor, a storage device, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements “a storage device storing a second document set”, “wherein the first document set includes multiple first documents stored on a time-series basis”, “wherein the second document set includes multiple second document stored on a time-series basis”, were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data transmitting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements of “a storage device storing a second document set”, “wherein the first document set includes multiple first documents stored on a time-series basis”, “wherein the second document set includes multiple second document stored on a time-series basis” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and storing data in a storing device and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processor to perform limitations “storing a second document set”, “wherein the first document set includes multiple first documents stored on a time-series basis”, “wherein the second document set includes multiple second document stored on a time-series basis; obtains a first document set including one or more first documents…; identifies a second business negotiation that is similar to the first business negotiation from among the second business negotiations…; and calculate the degree of similarity between the first document set and a set of the one or more newer second documents by calculating an average value of inter-work distances of all combinations of first words”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
(Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claims 9 and 10, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 9 directed to a method, independent claim 10 directed to a medium, are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 1.
Regarding dependent claims 2-5 and 7-8, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea. For example, Claim 2 recites a first output process that outputs, for each of at least one or all of the second business negotiations…; Claim 3 recites a second output process that refers to information indicative of a result of the second business negotiation identified in the identification process…; Claim 4 recites refers to the information indicative of the result of the second business negation identified in the identification process…; Claim 5 recites: calculates the degree of similarity between the first document set and the second document set…; Claim 7 recites calculates, as the degree of similarity between the first document set and the send document set, a degree of similarity between a firs document having a predetermined attribute…; Claim 8 recites outputs information indicating that the accuracy is not more than the predetermined threshold, that fall under the category of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B). Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-5 and 7-10 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
5. No prior arts were applied to the claims because the Examiner is unaware of any prior arts, alone or in combination, which disclose the features of: “wherein, in the identification process, the at least one processor is configure to refer, among the second documents included in the second document set, to a second document that is similar to any one of the first documents include in the first document set and one or more second documents that are newer that the similar second document, and calculate the degree of similarity between the first document set and a set of the one or more newer second documents by calculating an average value of inter-word distances of all combinations of first words included in the first document and second words including in the set of the one or more newer second documents”, recited in the independent claims 1, 9, and 10.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-10 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
I. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A-Prong Two: In response to the Applicant’s arguments the claims integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
the current amended claims recite the limitations "wherein, in the identification process, the at least one processor is configured to refer, among the second documents included in the second document set, to a second document that is similar to any one of the first documents included in the first document set and one or more second documents that are newer than the similar second document, and calculate the degree of similarity between the first document set and a set of the one or more newer second documents by calculating an average value of inter-word distances of all combinations of first words included in the first document and second words including in the set of the one or more newer second documents", which are performed by the at least one processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and is used to perform an abstract idea “among the second documents included in the second document set, to a second document that is similar to any one of the first documents included in the first document set and one or more second documents that are newer than the similar second document, and calculate the degree of similarity between the first document set and a set of the one or more newer second documents by calculating an average value of inter-word distances of all combinations of first words included in the first document and second words including in the set of the one or more newer second documents", such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In response to the Applicant’s arguments the claims recite an Inventive Concept, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that. the recitation of the processor to perform limitations “storing a second document set”, “wherein the first document set includes multiple first documents stored on a time-series basis”, “wherein the second document set includes multiple second document stored on a time-series basis; obtains a first document set including one or more first documents…; identifies a second business negotiation that is similar to the first business negotiation from among the second business negotiations…; and calculate the degree of similarity between the first document set and a set of the one or more newer second documents by calculating an average value of inter-word distances of all combinations of first words”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the 101 rejection is maintained.
II. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments and amendment with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
7. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
8. Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected.
9. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hoppe (US 2022/0292123) disclose a method for pre-selecting and determining similar documents from a set of documents, where the documents have tokenized character strings.
Biernacki (US 2022/0179883) discloses a method includes analyzing degrees of similarity among the technical documents using a hierarchical taxonomy code similarity model and a text clustering model. Clusters of the technical documents are generated based upon the analyzed degrees of similarity from the models.
Atasu et al. (US 2021/0303609) disclose an approach for construing similarities between datasets, a processor accesses a pair of sets of feature weights, wherein the sets of feature weights include a query dataset and comprises first weights associated to first features and a reference dataset and comprises second weights associated to second features.
Kim (US 2020/0117751) discloses a context-aware computing apparatus and a method of determining a topic word in a document using the same.
Agrawal et al. (US 2015/0379341) disclose techniques for comparing documents. For example, a comparison between layouts of the documents may be performed. The comparison may include segmenting the documents into blocks, where an arrangement of blocks of a document represents a layout of the document.
Okajima et al. (US 2013/0311471) disclose a time-series document summarization device outputs a summary sentence of a document-of-interest collection that is a document collection to be an object.
Gipp et al. (US 2011/0264672) disclose a method and a system for detecting a similarity of documents.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 January 15, 2026