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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“… A non-transitory tangible machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a machine…” it is unclear how instructions are executed by themselves and cause a machine to perform steps
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a data nesting system configured to create collapsible data tables in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth 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.
Claim limitation “a data nesting system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no line in the specification that mentions “a data nesting system”. Claim limitation “a data nesting system” may be “nesting data module” in [0028] Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-18, and 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.
Claim 1
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 system that performs at least one step. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step "execute the trained ML model to: extract the data from the input" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., trained ML model). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses a person reading a text document and picking out some interest words. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment).
Step "analyze the data to output (i) a predicted classification and (ii) a predicted impact associated with the project" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., trained ML model). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses a person reading a text document, determine a category of the text document, and judging how positively, negatively it affects the project. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment).
Step "convert, based on the predicted classification, the data to a standardized format in accordance with a standardization instruction set stored in the one or more memories that comprises a plurality of formatting templates, each template being associated with a respective predicted classification" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., one or more memories, templates, classification). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses a person determines a type of the document, identify a matching template (e.g., header, footer, font style, and so on), and format the text document in accordance with the template. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment).
Step "generate, by the data nesting system, a data structure that at least partially comprises the standardized data, the data structure having a second file size that is less than the first file size" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., data nesting system). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses a person grouping or creating pivot table so that the grouping takes up less space. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment).
"Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas." MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. "For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record." MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Here, the mentioned steps fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas and are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites the additional elements/limitations:
"receive, at the data inbox, an input including data corresponding to the project, wherein the data is formatted in accordance with a non-standardized format" → data receiving;
"store (i) the data structure and (ii) the predicted impact in the project database" → data storage;
"generate an indication of the data and the predicted impact for display to a user as part of the data inbox" → data outputting;
"one or more processors" → generic processor;
"one or more memories communicatively coupled with the one or more processors" → generic memory;
"a trained machine learning (ML) model" → generic ML tool;
"a data inbox" → generic data interface;
"a project database associated with a project" → generic database;
"a data nesting system configured to create collapsible data tables" → generic nesting tool.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) — Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field.
The elements "one or more processors," "one or more memories," "trained machine learning (ML) model," "data inbox," "project database," and "data nesting system" do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology. None of the mentioned tools makes the computer faster, more accurate, or more efficient. The elements "one or more processors," "one or more memories," "trained machine learning (ML) model," "data inbox," "project database," and "data nesting system" carry out abstract steps on a generic computer, leaving other technology unchanged. The computer itself does not run faster, use less memory, fewer cycles, or operate more efficiently. The recited "second file size that is less than the first file size" is a functional result of grouping items together, not a specific technical solution. The claim recites no specific compression algorithm, no specific data structure, and no specific encoding.
b) MPEP § 2106.05(b) — Particular Machine. The claim is a system claim, but the judicial exception does not apply to any particular machine.
The claim is silent regarding specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or Internet, nor do applicant direct examiner’s attention to such specific limitations. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea."). Applying this reasoning here, the claim is not directed to a particular machine, but rather merely implement an abstract idea using generic computer components such as "one or more processors," "one or more memories," "trained machine learning (ML) model," "data inbox," "project database," and "data nesting system". The claim recites no specific structure, hardware, or arrangement that would make them particular machines.
MPEP § 2106.05(c) — Particular Transformation.
The elements "receive, at the data inbox, an input including data corresponding to the project, wherein the data is formatted in accordance with a non-standardized format" → data receiving; "store (i) the data structure and (ii) the predicted impact in the project database" → data storage; "generate an indication of the data and the predicted impact for display to a user as part of the data inbox" → data outputting are not a "transformation or reduction of an article into a different state or thing constituting patent-eligible subject matter[.]" See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd sub nom, Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("The mere manipulation or reorganization of data ... does not satisfy the transformation prong."). Applying this guidance here, the claims fail to satisfy the transformation prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
d) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
This section of the MPEP guides: Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. 450 U.S. 175, ... (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation ( an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78 .... The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184... In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S._ .... In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(e). The elements "one or more processors," "one or more memories," "trained machine learning (ML) model," "data inbox," "project database," and "data nesting system" do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea. The mentioned elements do not narrow how, when, or by what structure the abstract steps are performed. Further, the elements "receive, at the data inbox, an input including data corresponding to the project, wherein the data is formatted in accordance with a non-standardized format" → data receiving; "store (i) the data structure and (ii) the predicted impact in the project database" → data storage; "generate an indication of the data and the predicted impact for display to a user as part of the data inbox" → data outputting are pre and post-solution activities. The limitations are not meaningful limitations.
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The limitation "receive, at the data inbox, an input including data corresponding to the project, wherein the data is formatted in accordance with a non-standardized format" is pre-solution data gathering. The limitation "store (i) the data structure and (ii) the predicted impact in the project database" is post-solution activity data storage. The limitation "generate an indication of the data and the predicted impact for display to a user as part of the data inbox" is post-solution activity data output. The limitation only displays the result. These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity.
MPEP § 2106.05(h) — Field of Use and Technological Environment.
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or post-solution activity-such as identifying a relevant audience, a category of use, field of use, or technological environment. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The elements "one or more processors," "one or more memories," "trained machine learning (ML) model," "data inbox," "project database," and "data nesting system" are simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations "receive, at the data inbox, an input including data corresponding to the project" → data receiving, "store (i) the data structure and (ii) the predicted impact in the project database" → data storage, and "generate an indication of the data and the predicted impact for display to a user as part of the data inbox" → data outputting do not recite any non-generic arrangement for receiving, storing, or displaying project data. The named "one or more processors," "one or more memories," "trained machine learning (ML) model," "data inbox," "project database," and "data nesting system" are generic computer tools that implement the abstract idea. The generic computer tools do not improve the computer itself or any other technology. Taking these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when the elements are taken individually in implementing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites "the trained ML model is trained using a plurality of training inputs and a plurality of training extracted data as input to output a plurality of training predicted classifications and a plurality of training predicted impacts." This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses a person learning patterns of previous data to guess a classification of new data. The limitation does not provide any details to improve the computer itself or any technological field. There is no specific algorithm the training data the machine model. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites "analyze the plurality of data included in the input to determine that a remainder of the plurality of data is redundant data that is stored as part of the project; and extract the subset from the input without extracting the remainder of the plurality of the data" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., one or more processors, trained ML model). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses a person a new version of a document, determining sections of the new version were in the previous version, and only writing down the new information. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation and judgment). The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites "determine that a report threshold is exceeded based on the data included in the input; automatically generate a report associated with the project based on the data included in the input and at least a portion of the plurality of standardized data; and generate an indication of the report for display to the user as part of the data inbox" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., one or more processors). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses a person determines a predefined monitored level and write and email a report based on the input data. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation and judgment). The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites "the trained ML model utilizes at least one of: (i) optical character recognition (OCR), (ii) image recognition, (iii) object recognition, or (iv) image extrapolation." The claim merely describes a field of use rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites "the indication includes a reference link to the input." This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses a person writing an entry in an index to remember where the document can be found. The claim merely recites a functional result, such as pointing back to the source, rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites "transmit a message for users connected to the data inbox in real-time indicating the data and the predicted impact." This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses a person sending an email alert to tell them what is the incoming data and what it affects. The claim merely recites a functional result, such as notifying other users, rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites "the predicted classification indicates a data type associated with the data, and the predicted impact indicates one or more effects caused by the data to other data stored as part of the project." The limitation only defines what the classification and impact outputs mean. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites "identify an inconsistency within the data based on other data stored in association with the project; and generate an alert for transmission to an entity that transmitted the data to the data inbox indicating the inconsistency" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., one or more processors). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses a person observing, evaluating, judging differences or changes between versions of documents. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation and judgment). The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites "determine a first data category for the data included in the input; execute a second trained ML model to determine a predicted data category mapping for the first data category that maps the first data category to a normalized data category... input the first data category into a first table having a first file size, and collapse the first table with a second table that includes a second data category that is related to the first data category to generate a nested table" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., one or more processors, second trained ML model, nesting data module). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses a person observing, evaluating to create association between one category to another category. Further, identifying repeated data and collapsing repeated records under one shared heading (e.g., pivot table). Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation and judgment). The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites "the input is a first input, the data is a first set of data, the non-standardized format is a first non-standardized format, the predicted classification is a first predicted classification, the predicted impact is a first predicted impact, the indication is a first indication, and the computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to, in parallel with the first input by utilizing parallel processing: receive, at the data inbox, a second input including a second set of data corresponding to the project, wherein the second set of data is formatted in accordance with a second non-standardized format; execute, the trained ML model to: extract the second set of data from the second input, and analyze the second set of data to output (i) a second predicted classification and (ii) a second predicted impact associated with the project; convert the second set of data to the standardized format based on the second predicted classification; store (i) the second set of data and (ii) the second predicted impact in the project database; and generate a second indication of the second set of data and the second predicted impact for display to the user as part of the data inbox" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., one or more processors, trained ML model, data inbox, project database, parallel processing). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses tasks being given to two or more people to complete instead of one person completing them one after the other. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 -18 are similar to claim 1-4 and 8. Claim 20 is similar to claim 1. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Section 35 U.S.C 101 Rejection – pg. 10
PNG
media_image1.png
648
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
148
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
456
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument has been considered. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the claims improve computer functioning by reducing file size via 'collapsible data tables.' However, these claims merely recite a functional result rather than a specific technical solution. The 'nesting' of data (e.g., a pivot table) is a well-known method of organizing data in tables. The reduction in file size is an ancillary benefit of the abstract idea. As the claims do not recite specific unconventional steps for how (specific algorithm) the computer performs this nesting, they fail to provide a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Merely saying that data is stored more efficiently does not change an abstract idea into a patent-eligible "improvement to computer functionality"
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant s disclosure
U.S. Pub 2020/0394567 – Choe discloses to automatically generate a project document, a server receives input documents associated with a project, and extracts a set of features from each input document. The server than applies a document type machine-learned model to a set of words for each input document to infer a document type. The server automatically generates a project document for the project based on the document types and inferred architecture pattern.
U.S. Pub 2025/0182013 – Awan discloses a project management system and method are configured to predict problems with projects and to generate early alerts using artificial intelligence. The feature extraction module extracts a feature from project data associated with a project, predicts a state of the project to initiate reporting the analyzed predicted state including generating and outputting the early alerts, remediating the project based on the analyzed predicted state, or both.
U.S. Pub 20190121840 – Abbot discloses a system and method is provided for dynamically restructuring intelligent document data in a user interface to perform a specified task. An intelligent document is classified and segmented into sections. The user selected visibility status and section order are stored in a document-display template by section types of the selected sections. The display template is utilized to display other intelligent documents according to the visibility status and section order stored in the document-display template by the section types.
U.S. Pub 2021/0064866 – Rezvani discloses an automatic document classification using machine learning may involve receiving inputs that assign documents to classifiers, which define document classification rules for a classification model. The computing device may also receive a template design for each destination that specifies metadata to extract for a document type corresponding to documents assigned to the destination. The computing device may subsequently classifying a particular document using the classification model, which may involve assigning the particular document to a given destination of the plurality of destinations based on the document classification rules, and exporting metadata from the particular document using the template design associated with the given destination.
U.S. Pub 2021/0081899 – VENKATASUBRAMANIAN discloses a machine learning system that monitors and detects risk in electronic correspondence related to a construction project are described. In one embodiment, a method includes monitoring email communications over a network to identify an email; tokenizing text from the email into a plurality of words and initiating a machine learning classifier configured to identify construction terminology and to classify text with a risk as being litigious or non-litigious. The machine learning classifier processes the words from the email by at least corresponding the words to a set of defined litigious vocabulary and defined non-litigious vocabulary. The email is labeled as litigious or non-litigious. An electronic notice is generated and transmitted to a remote device in response to the email being labeled as being litigious to provide an alert in near-real time in relation to receiving the email over the network.
U.S. Pub 2008/0275742 – Vermette discloses nested hierarchies can be efficiently analyzed by normalizing a portion of the hierarchy as defined by a limiting factor for the hierarchy. In a project hierarchy wherein each project contains a task hierarchy, each task hierarchy can be normalized. Further, the projects can be assigned to levels such that data for each level can be indexed, partitioned, or otherwise differentiated. The data then can be efficiently rolled up by level using the partially normalized hierarchy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights