DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Remarks
In response to communication files on May 19, 2026, claims 1, 4, and 8 are amended and claims 14-20 are withdrawn by applicant's request. Therefore, claims 1-13 are presently pending in the application.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 8,
Step 1 Analysis: Claims 1 and 8 are directed to a process, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 and 8 recites,
The limitations of:
“applying one or more automated techniques to data from the document file to try to label the document represented by the document file” is a mental process which can be performed by the human mind. A human can use data from a file to label a document.
“responsive to not being able to assign a label to the document above an acceptable threshold level using one or more automated techniques, noting the document file for subsequent review by a user” is a mental process which can be performed by the human mind. A human can assign label to data.
“using at least part of the training dataset, which includes the document file, as training data in one or more training processes for training or updating one or more automated techniques for document labeling for one or more additional documents” is a mental process which can be performed by the human mind. A human with the proper information can label data.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: Claims 1 and 8 recites the additional elements: “receiving a document file…”,“receiving input from the user…”, “receiving a training dataset”, “presenting the output…”, “receiving feedback…”, “storing…”, “using at least part…”, and “processor”. The limitations of “receiving, presenting, storing ” are an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. A processor, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. With respect to the “receiving, presenting, storing ” limitation is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more. Lastly the recitation of “processor” is recitation of generic computer components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f). The overall method of using human review to supplement automated processing to create a training dataset is a fundamental and common practice in machine learning. This is considered a method of organizing human activity or a conventional business practice, which courts have identified as an abstract idea when claimed generically.
Therefore, the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-7 and 9-13, the rejection of claims 1 and 8 are further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: extracting…providing…presenting… storing… This limitation amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. the claim is directed to the abstract idea of a human-in-the-loop document labeling method using conventional computer technology. The claim lacks a specific, non-conventional technical solution or improvement that would render it patent-eligible. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed based on prior art but still rejected under 101 rejection. See 101 rejection for details and reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BELIX M ORTIZ DITREN whose telephone number is (571)272-4081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am -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, Amy Ng can be reached at 571-270-1698. 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.
BELIX M. ORTIZ DITREN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2164
/Belix M Ortiz Ditren/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
