DETAILED ACTION
Applicant canceled claims 1-24 and selected species II claims 25-31. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/1/2025.
Claims 25-31 are pending in this office action.
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 25-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 25 recite limitations
receiving a plurality of inputs comprising a seed problem, seed solution, and title from a user device;
identifying one or more key features from the plurality of inputs;
generating one or more key concepts from the identified one or more key features;
determining one or more pre-defined classifications corresponding to the generated one or more key-concepts;
identifying a plurality of related documents from a database based on the determined one or more classifications;
identifying one or more concepts from the identified related documents;
selecting one or more of the identified concepts;
generation of the set of suggestions based on the one or more selected concepts; and
displaying the generated set of suggestions to the user, via the user device.
a) In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
Claim 25 recites abstract idea of
(identifying one or more key features from the plurality of inputs;
generating one or more key concepts from the identified one or more key features;
determining one or more pre-defined classifications corresponding to the generated one or more key-concepts;
identifying a plurality of related documents from a database based on the determined one or more classifications;
identifying one or more concepts from the identified related documents;
selecting one or more of the identified concepts, from the user device;
generation of the set of suggestions based on the one or more selected concepts) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of identifying, generating, determining, identifying, identifying, selecting and generating. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
b) In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
Claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because additional elements of (a user device; the user device) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for obtaining that are well understood routine and conventional activities.
The additional limitations of
(receiving a plurality of inputs comprising a seed problem, seed solution, and title from a user device; and displaying the generated set of suggestions to the user, via the user device) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
c) In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
Claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements of (a user device; the user device) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for obtaining that are well understood routine and conventional activities.
The additional limitations of (receiving a plurality of inputs comprising a seed problem, seed solution, and title from a user device; and displaying the generated set of suggestions to the user, via the user device) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 26-31include all the limitations of claim 25. Therefore, claims 26-31 recite the same abstract idea of processing and generating practically being performed in the mind, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
In particularly:
Claim 26 recites abstract idea of identifying the one or more key features comprises performing correlation among the words present in text corresponding to the plurality of user inputs as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of identifying and correlating. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 27 recites abstract idea of generating the one or more key concepts comprises performing correlation among the words present in the one or more key features as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of generating, correlating. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 28 recites abstract idea of determining one or more pre-defined classifications comprises determining corresponding technical fields of the one or more key concepts as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of determining and determining. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 29 recites abstract idea of identifying the plurality of related documents from the database based on the determined one or more classifications comprises the use of text vectorization as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of identifying and determining. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 30 recites abstract idea of identifying the one or more concepts comprises creating summaries corresponding to each of the identified documents, to extract a problem- statement corresponding to each of the identified related documents as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of identifying and creating. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 31 recites abstract idea of wherein generation of the set of suggestions based on the one or more selected concepts comprises utilizing the created summaries of the related documents corresponding to the selected concepts as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of generating and utilizing. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea; and these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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, 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.
Claims 25, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivette et al (or hereinafter “Rivette”) (US 20070208669) in view of FOWLKES et al (or hereinafter “Fo”) (US 20230252091)
As to claim 25, Rivette teaches a computer implemented method for generating a set of suggestions to be used by a user to enhance solutions for seed problems, the method comprising:
“receiving a plurality of inputs comprising ……, and title from a user device” as receiving from a client computer as user device (figs. 7, 53, paragraphs 513, 517, 587), search command includes (paragraph 513) e.g., a plurality of fields 5304, date of issue 5313, order results by 5332 as a plurality of inputs include values e.g., all U.S. patents, before, score and title (figs. 53, 140, paragraphs 517-519, 657, 661, 1218-1219);
“identifying one or more key features from the plurality of inputs” as identifying one or more abstracts, patent title, patent score or patent number as one or more key features from the search command including the plurality of fields as the plurality of inputs (figs. 140-143, paragraphs 1219-1224);
“generating one or more key concepts from the identified one or more key features” as generating one or more results including one or more patents that satisfy key term e.g., word PCMCIA is represented as one or more key concepts (fig. 140, paragraphs 518, 1220) from the identified one or more patent title, patent score, patent number as the identified one or more key features (figs. 141-142, paragraphs 663, 1222-1225);
“determining one or more pre-defined classifications corresponding to the generated one or more key-concepts” as displaying as determining one or more groups e.g., cross reference to related application 14516 and U.S. Patent documents 14526 as one or more pre-defined classifications corresponding the generated result that includes one patent: 5615328 selected is represented the key-concept (figs. 143, 145A, paragraphs 1226-1230). The U.S. Patent documents 14526 as one or more pre-defined classifications includes cited references (fig. 145A).
In particularly:
[1230] If the operator wishes to view the bibliography of the selected patent, for example, then the operator presses the Bibliography button 14512. The operator presses the Cross Reference To Related Applications button 14516 to view cross-reference information of the selected patent. The operator presses the Brief Description Of Drawings button 14518 to view the brief description of the drawings section of the selected patent. The operator presses the Detailed Description Of The Invention button 14520 to view the detailed description section of the selected patent. The operator presses the Claims button 14522 to view the claims section of the selected patent.
[1233] The selected patent may also be linked to references to other documents that are contained in the selected patent. For example, the selected patent as displayed in FIGS. 145A-145C includes links to cited U.S. patent documents. These links are represented by reference numbers 14526 and 14528. Hyperlinks in the selected patent are denoted by underlining.
[1234] The selected patent may also include links to citations of other publications, as represented by reference number 14530, and citations to related applications, as represented by reference number 14532 or
identifying and displaying as determining as one or more groups e.g., subassemblies 5904, 5908 as one or more pre-defined classifications corresponding one or more result patents that satisfy the one or more search terms is represented as the generated one or more key concepts (figs. 59-61, paragraphs 924-926, 942);
“identifying a plurality of related documents from a database based on the determined one or more classifications” as identifying a plurality of cited patents as related documents from a bibliographic database based on the selected U.S. patent documents as the displayed classification (figs. 145A-145B, paragraphs 1233-1237, 1241-1242).
In particularly, [1236] the operator can view the document corresponding to any linked citation by selecting that linked citation. For example, FIG. 146 illustrates a display screen that shows information pertaining to U.S. Pat. No. 5,206,830. This display screen 14602 was generated pursuant to the operator selecting a corresponding linked citation 14536 in the selected patent (see FIG. 145B). In the display screen 14602 of FIG. 146, the operator can elect to electronically order a copy of the patent from a third party provider by pressing an Order button 14604;
“…… from the user device” as receiving commands from the web client 304 implemented in a computer as the user device (paragraphs 509, 604, 606);
“displaying ……to the user, via the user device” as displaying groups to the user on interface (figs. 7, 58, 114, paragraphs 1153-1154, 587) via the client computer (paragraphs 509, 517, 522, 606).
Rivette does not explicitly teach limitations
a seed problem, seed solution;
identifying one or more concepts from the identified related documents;
selecting one or more of the identified concepts;
generation of the set of suggestions based on the one or more selected concepts; and
the generated set of suggestions.
Fo teaches limitations
“a seed problem” as originally presented Technical Problem as a seed problem (paragraphs 3, 9);
“seed solution” as abstract Standard Solution(s) as a seed solution (paragraphs 3, 9)
“identifying one or more concepts from the identified related documents” as generating as identifying one or more concept terms as one or more concepts from produced related documents as the identified related documents (paragraphs 44-45);
In particularly, the degree of similarity between the identified documents and the query are used by the Document Retriever 180 to produce a list of documents that are semantically related to the Problem Description (paragraph 44). A Results Set Summarizer 190 generates a list of Keyword or Concept Terms or phrases that are derived from the list of documents semantically related to the Problem Description (paragraph 45);
“selecting one or more of the identified concepts” as combining as selecting the concept terms with generic solution prompts (figs. 2, 3, paragraphs 9, 47);
“generation of the set of suggestions based on the one or more selected concepts” as creating a list of specific Solution Prompts as a set of suggestions based on the combined concept terms (paragraphs 9, 25, 47);
“the generated set of suggestions” as displaying to a user the created list of specific solution prompts as the generated set of suggestions (paragraph 48) via a graphical user interface of client computer as user device (paragraphs 55-56, 60, fig. 8).
Fo further teaches limitations
“selecting one or more of the identified concepts, from the user device” as combining as selecting the concept terms with generic solution prompts (figs. 2, 3, paragraphs 9, 47) from client computer as user device (paragraphs 55-56, 60, fig. 8);
“displaying the generated set of suggestions to the user, via the user device” as displaying to a user the created list of specific solution prompts as the generated set of suggestions (paragraph 48) via a graphical user interface of client computer as user device (paragraphs 55-56, 60, fig. 8);
“generating a set of suggestions to be used by a user to enhance solutions for seed problems” as creating a list of specific Solution Prompts as a set of suggestions (paragraph 48) to be read by a user (paragraph 56) to improve solutions for problems (paragraphs 37, 54, 56).
In particularly, each very time the “New Suggestion” input button 455 is selected, a new Specific Solutions Prompt is presented to the user. The user may read a Specific Solution Prompt, reflect upon how it may be applied to the current technical system or problem, and then input information into the “New Solution” field 460, and then select the “Record New Solution” button 465, which records the input information into a storage area or memory and clears filed 460 so that other information (e.g., concepts, ideas, etc.) based on the same Specific Solution Prompt can be recorded. Alternatively, button 455 can be selected pressed to display a new Specific Solution Prompt. The entire process can continue to iterate for as long as the user desires, until the user selects the “Next” button 470, which displays other routines, including a report generator that will create a report of all the recorded solutions, or ends the process (paragraph 56).
Rivette and Fo disclose a method of receiving query and provide suggestions based on the received query. These references are same field with application’s field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Fo’s teaching to Rivette’s system in order to improve recommendation quality and further to resolve a query for identifying relevant database items corresponding to a query efficiently.
As to claim 26, Rivette and Fo teach limitation
“wherein identifying the one or more key features comprises performing correlation among the words present in text corresponding to the plurality of user inputs” as identifying one or more abstracts, patent title, patent score or patent number as one key feature from the search command including plurality of fields as the plurality of inputs includes (Rivette: figs. 53, 140-141, paragraphs 663, 1222-1224) performing a search to identify patents that include abstracts with words in text e.g., PCMCIA (Rivette: figs. 53, 140, paragraphs 1220-1221) that satisfy as corresponding to the user search criteria or the user search command including the plurality of fields as the plurality of user inputs (Rivette: figs. 53, 140, paragraphs 536, 517-519, 1220-1221).
Claims 27, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivette in view of Fo and further in view of Urabe (US 20220365972)
As to claim 27, Rivette and Fo teach limitation
“ wherein generating the one or more key concepts comprises” as generating one or more results including one or more patent as one or more key concepts includes performing a search (Rivette: figs. 53-54, 140-141, paragraphs 663, 1222-1225).
Rivette and Fo do not explicitly teach limitation
performing correlation among the words present in the one or more key features
Urabe teaches limitation
“performing correlation among the words present in the one or more key features” as including words common to the words in the business documents classified into PURCHASE BUSINESS group as key feature (paragraph 114).
In particularly, the business document classification portion 2144 classifies the business documents according to the description content of the documents; as shown in FIG. 14, the documents are classified into two groups that are a “PURCHASE BUSINESS” group G1, and a “BUSINESS TRIP” group G2. A case where the classification destination determination portion 2145 classifies the operation logs L1 and L2 into business types is then described. Operation logs that are obtainable from an “ESTIMATION REQUEST SYSTEM” screen M1 and a “PURCHASE SYSTEM” screen M2 often include words common to the words in the business documents classified into “PURCHASE BUSINESS” group G1 (paragraph 144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Urabe’s teaching to Rivette’s system in order to manually performs labeling of a name of business, a name of work grouping, and setting of a grouping rule, so as to achieve an appropriate granularity.
As to claim 29, Rivette and Fo teach limitation
“wherein identifying the plurality of related documents from the database based on the determined one or more classifications comprises……” as identifying a plurality of cited patents as related documents from a bibliographic database based on the selected U.S. patent documents as the classification include classes (Rivette: figs. 145A-145B, paragraphs 1233-1237, 1241-1242).
Rivette and Fo do not explicitly teach limitation
the use of text vectorization
Urabe teaches limitation
“the use of text vectorization” as performing vectorization of words in classification as the use of text vectorization (138, 131).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Urabe’s teaching to Rivette’s system in order to manually performs labeling of a name of business, a name of work grouping, and setting of a grouping rule, so as to achieve an appropriate granularity.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivette in view of Fo and further in view of Palmer et al (US 20180067947)
As to claim 28, Rivette and Fo teach limitation
“wherein determining one or more pre-defined classifications comprises determining corresponding……” as identifying as determining BOM group e.g., Digital video recording 6104 includes identifying BOM_ids corresponding to (Rivette: fig. 61, paragraphs 938) concept term (Fo: paragraph 48)
Rivette and Fo do not explicitly teach limitation
technical fields of the one or more key concepts.
Palmer teaches limitation
“technical fields of the one or more key concepts” as technical fields of record concepts (paragraph 163).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Palmer’s teaching to Rivette’s system in order to allow a user to identify secondary data records that disclose similar concepts, to quickly identify patents that are very similar to the patent of interest and further to allow users to easily find documents or companies that are operating in a very similar technical field.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivette in view of Fo and further in view of Mandal et al (US 20230267033)
As to claim 30, Rivette and Fo teach limitation
“wherein identifying the one or more concepts comprises” as generating as identifying one or more concept terms as one or more concepts includes using degree of similarity (Fo: paragraphs 44-45).
Rivette and Fo do not explicitly teach limitation
creating summaries corresponding to each of the identified documents, to extract a problem- statement corresponding to each of the identified related documents.
Mandal teaches limitation
“creating summaries corresponding to each of the identified documents, to extract a problem- statement corresponding to each of the identified related documents” as generating incident records as summaries corresponding to each incident of the identified incidents as the identified documents (paragraphs 58-60) to extract a problem descriptor corresponding to each incident of the identified incidents (paragraph 61-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Mandal’s teaching to Rivette’s system in order to determine most appropriate remediation actions for the target incident to provide the most appropriate remediation actions as recommendations for resolving the incident.
As to claim 31, Rivette and Fo teach limitation
“wherein generation of the set of suggestions based on the one or more selected concepts comprises utilizing the created summaries of the related documents corresponding to the selected concepts” as generating of Solution Prompts based on the displayed concept terms or keywords includes using (Fo: abstract, paragraphs 9, 55-56, figs. 6A-7C) summaries of the identified incidents (Mandal: paragraphs 58-60) corresponding the obtained set of concept terms (Fo: abstract, paragraphs 9, 55-56, figs. 6A-7C).
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivette in view of Fo and further in view of Fume (US 20220107972) and Kim (US 20230325705).
As to claim 30, Rivette and Fo teach limitation
“wherein identifying the one or more concepts comprises” as generating as identifying one or more concept terms as one or more concepts includes using degree of similarity (Fo: paragraphs 44-45).
Rivette and Fo do not explicitly teach limitation
creating summaries corresponding to each of the identified documents, to extract a problem- statement corresponding to each of the identified related documents.
Fume teaches limitation
“creating summaries corresponding to each of the identified documents” as the generated summaries corresponding to the related documents (paragraph 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Fume’s teaching to Rivette’s system in order to provide to a user ranked documents corresponding user request efficiently.
Kim teaches limitation
“to extract a problem-statement corresponding to each of the identified related documents” as to retrieve problem-solution descriptions as problem statements corresponding books from libraries (paragraph 28 32).
Kim teaches limitation
“to extract a problem-statement corresponding to each of the identified related documents” as to retrieve problem-solution descriptions as problem statements corresponding books from libraries (paragraph 28 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kim’s teaching to Rivette’s system in order to allow users easily understand problems to quickly resolve the errors for producing satisfying results corresponding a user query.
As to claim 31, Rivette, Fo, Fume, and Kim teach limitation
“wherein generation of the set of suggestions based on the one or more selected concepts comprises utilizing the created summaries of the related documents corresponding to the selected concepts” as generating of Solution Prompts based on the displayed concept terms or keywords includes using (Fo: abstract, paragraphs 9, 55-56, figs. 6A-7C) the generated summaries of the related documents (Fume: paragraph 24) corresponding the obtained set of concept terms (Fo: abstract, paragraphs 9, 55-56, figs. 6A-7C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ganz et al (US 20240346006)
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAM-Y T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4042. The examiner can normally be reached (571) 272 4042.
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, SHERIEF BADAWI can be reached at (571) 272-9782. 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.
/CAM Y T TRUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169