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 . The following is a Final Office Action. Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 are rejected below.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “Moreover, the claim recites that the processor is configured to trigger automatic addition of the set of questions into at least one section of the machine-readable document, wherein the automatic addition comprises dynamically updating the document by contextually aligning the questions with topics associated with the section. This step represents a direct modification of the underlying digital document structure, such that the document is transformed from a static authored file into a self-updating, contextually enriched artifact containing both original and system-generated content. Humans cannot, in real time, restructure machine-readable documents, ensure contextual alignment across multiple sections, and preserve both authored and system- generated data in a coherent structure. These operations require specialized computational components for parsing, alignment, and document modification.”
Examiner responds the triggering addition of the set of questions into the at least one section...by contextually aligning the set of questions with the one or more topics associated with the at least one section- is part of the abstract idea because it can be performed in the human mind. The “automation addition...and dynamically updating a machine-readable document” - when considered in view of the claim as a whole, are additional elements recited at a high level of generality, and are simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer (ie. apply it), and thus, no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components.
Applicant argues, “For instance, the subject matter of the amended independent claim 1 facilitates a practical application of intelligent document processing technology to provide dynamic, context-aware enhancement of machine-readable documents....The ultimate output of the claimed system is not limited to abstract analysis, but rather a structural modification of the machine-readable document itself, wherein the system triggers automatic addition of dynamically generated questions into one or more sections of the document, aligning each question with the corresponding topic of the section. This results in a self-updating document that merges authored content with system-generated questionnaire content in an integrated manner, thereby providing a persistent, machine-stored enhancement to the document....Accordingly, the subject matter of the amended independent claim 1 is not merely directed to organizing human activity or performing mental processes.... These features provide a practical application that goes beyond abstract ideas by manifesting in technical improvements to computer-stored documents and document management workflows.”
Examiner responds as stated above- the triggering addition of the set of questions into the at least one section...by contextually aligning the set of questions with the one or more topics associated with the at least one section- can still be performed mentally and is interpreted as part of the abstract idea. The “automatic addition...and dynamically updating a machine-readable document” - when considered in view of the claim as a whole, are additional elements recited at a high level of generality, and are simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer (ie. apply it), and thus, no more than applying the abstract idea with a generic computer component.
Applicant argues, “...Unlike conventional approaches, the system further performs topic-based clustering of questions and automated destination identification based on preference parameters, enabling precise routing of queries to the most relevant experts, agents, or computational models. Crucially, the claimed system goes beyond mere information analysis by triggering automatic addition of generated questions into sections of the machine-readable document itself, dynamically updating the document structure and contextually aligning the questions with the associated topics of each section. This operation transforms the document from a static authored artifact into a self-updating, enriched resource that integrates both authored content and system-generated content in real time. Such structural modification of a digital document cannot be performed mentally, and requires specialized computing infrastructure to achieve contextual alignment, section-level insertion, and persistent storage of modified content. As a result, the subject matter of amended independent claim 1 represents a significant technological improvement over traditional document management and content generation approaches, offering enhanced accuracy, responsiveness, and contextual integrity in the preparation of compliance reports, regulatory reviews, and other structured machine-readable documents.
Examiner responds the triggering addition of the set of questions into the at least one section...by contextually aligning the set of questions with the one or more topics associated with the at least one section- can still be performed mentally and is interpreted as part of the abstract idea. As noted above, the “automatic addition...and dynamically updating a machine-readable document”, as an ordered combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components (ie. apply it). In addition - in Claims 4 and 20 the initiating rendering of the set of questions on the destination or causing of rendering under BRI may be considered mere data gathering/data exchange and insignificant extrasolution activities which do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)); and these limitations are equivalent to receiving/transmitting data and are well-understood routine and conventional which do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Applicant argues, “...The subject matter of independent claim 1 provides a technologically advanced system for intelligently parsing, analyzing, and dynamically updating machine-readable documents in a manner that cannot be accomplished by traditional static document preparation approaches. The system first leverages a natural language processing (NLP) engine to parse unstructured content within a document and identify keywords across multiple sections that are associated with different topics. The system then computes interrelationship metrics to determine both simple correlations (direct keyword-to-topic links) and complex correlations (via intermediary keywords) between document keywords and topics. This multi-level correlation analysis allows for context-aware identification of relevant information, which would be beyond human cognitive capacity to execute reliably or efficiently. By further determining linkage statuses based on threshold comparisons, the system ensures only contextually significant keywords are retained for downstream processing. From these relevant keywords, the system automatically models a questionnaire, which is then algorithmically classified into clusters linked with specific document topics. The system also uses stored preference parameters to identify destinations whether subject matter experts, automated agents, or computational modules ensuring that generated questions are routed intelligently to the most relevant recipients.... Most critically, the claimed system provides a technical improvement by triggering automatic addition of the generated questions into at least one section of the machine-readable document, dynamically updating the document by contextually aligning the questions with the topics of the section. This operation transforms the machine-readable document into a self-updating, contextually enriched digital artifact that integrates both authored content and system-generated content in real time. The result is a document that not only reflects authored inputs but also embeds dynamically generated, contextually relevant questions within its structure, making it actionable and significantly more useful.”
Examiner responds the steps recited above including the triggering addition of the set of questions into the at least one section...by contextually aligning the set of questions with the one or more topics associated with the at least one section-under BRI can be practically performed in the human mind are part of the abstract idea. Both the NLP engine and “automation addition...dynamically updating the machine-readable document” are additional elements that still amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components (ie. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, namely a generic computing environment sending generic commands to generic devices, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
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 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Based on a facial reading of the claim elements, Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 fall within a statutory class of process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, the claims recite an abstract idea. Claims 1, 10, and 16 include limitations reciting functionality that
generates content and destination identification for a machine-readable document, including limitations that:
Parse content associated with a machine-readable document to identify a set of keywords, the machine-readable document comprising one or more sections...
Compute an interrelationship metric for each keyword....
Determine a linkage status for each keyword...
Filter a relevant set of keywords...
Trigger modeling of a questionnaire...
Initiate classification of each of the questions into one or more clusters...
Identify a destination from amongst a plurality of destinations to receive a set of
questions...
Generate a questionnaire delivery information for delivering the set of
questions...
Trigger addition of the set of questions into the at least one section...by contextually aligning the set of questions with the one or more topics associated with the at least one section
which is an abstract idea reasonably categorized as
Mental processes, because each of the limitations describes concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and
Mathematical concept, because the computing of the interrelationship metric and comparing to a threshold linkage score describes mathematical relationships and correlations.,
Similarly, Claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-20 further narrow the same abstract concept identified above related to mental processes, and mathematical concepts. As a result, Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea related to mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mathematical concepts under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 10, and 16 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the framework. These additional elements include a NPL engine, system, processor, computer-readable medium, instructions, and “automatic addition...and dynamically updating the machine-readable document.” when considered in view of the claim as a whole, Examiner submits that the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (ie. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. In addition, these elements merely generally link the abstract idea to a field use/ technological environment, namely a generic computing environment sending generic commands to generic devices.
In Claims 4 - the data repository and interface generation unit communicatively coupled with the processor are simply generic computing elements performing generic computing functions and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer under MPEP 2106.05(f), and
In Claims 4-5 the receiving a response from the destination may be considered mere data gathering/data exchange and insignificant extrasolution activities which do not provide a practical application to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In Claims 4 and 20 the initiating or causing of rendering under BRI may be considered mere data gathering/data exchange and insignificant extrasolution activities which do not provide a practical application to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The remaining dependent claims do not include any additional elements beyond those recited above. As a result, Claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-20 do not include additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 1, 10, and 16 include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the framework. These additional elements include a NLP engine, system, processor, computer-readable medium, instructions, and “automation addition...dynamically updating the machine-readable document.” As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components (ie. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, namely a generic computing environment sending generic commands to generic devices, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
As a result, Claims 1, 10, and 16 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
In Claims 4- the data repository and interface generation unit communicatively coupled with the processor are simply generic computing elements performing generic computing functions and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer under MPEP 2106.05(f), and
In Claims 4-5 and 14 the receiving a response from the destination may be considered mere data gathering/data exchange and insignificant extrasolution activities which do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)); and these limitations are equivalent to receiving/transmitting data and are well-understood routine and conventional which do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
In Claims 4 and 20 the initiating the set of questions on the destination or causing of rendering under BRI may be considered mere data gathering/data exchange and insignificant extrasolution activities which do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)); and these limitations are equivalent to receiving/transmitting data and are well-understood routine and conventional which do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The remaining dependent claims do not include any additional elements beyond those recited above. As a result, Claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-20 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 10, and 16. As a result, Claims 1-20 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Overcoming Prior Art
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 would be allowable if the claims were written to overcome 101. Examiner interprets the claimed machine-readable document that is dynamically updated in view of Figure 2C, Spec 0045, 0095, and 0127 – the questions that are added are contextually aligned to one or more sections associated to topics that are within a preexisting document.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. [AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
148
1097
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT ROSS whose telephone number is (571) 270-1555. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM E.S.T..
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, Rutao Wu, can be reached on (571) 272-6045. 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.
/Scott Ross/
Examiner - Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights