DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on April 9, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this action.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20, regarding Double Patenting rejection and Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive. For examiner’s response to the applicant arguments or comments, see the detailed discussion in the Response to the Arguments section.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20, rejection under 35 U.S.C §102 and §103, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,983,502. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed language of claims 1-20 merely broadens the claimed subject matter of claims 1-20 of the patent, by omitting some limitations.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before, In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of labeling a document. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims directed to an abstract idea of labeling a document. The claims are drawn to process/computer program instruction/ device (a series of steps or acts) that similar to an idea 'Of itself such as an instantiated concept, plan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper'.
The claim does not require that the method/computer program instruction/ device
be implemented by a particular machine. The method/computer program instruction/
device does not require a particular transformation of a particular article. There are no
transformation of a physical objects or data into a different state or thing. This labeling a
document is similar to delivering user-selected media content to a portable device found
by the courts to be abstract idea (Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC V. Amazon.com Inc., 120
USPQ2d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and also displaying certain results of the collection and
analysis found by the courts to be abstract idea (Elec. Power Grp., LLC V. Alstom S.A.,
119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because
claims broadly recites the result (labeling a document including generating and
predicting steps), rather than sufficiently claiming a means of achieving the result. See
Two-Way Media Ltd. V. Comcast Cable Commons, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir.
2017) ("The claim requires the functional results but does not sufficiently describe
how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.").
The claims recite a Judicial exception relating to "labeling a document, along with
a generic multi-label classifier that simply used as tool to implement the abstract idea".
Here the claims do not change the underlying or other technology, rather the claimed
techniques playing using a multi-label classifier as pedagogical tool. The claimed
additional elements - - multi-label classifier- - "merely use a computer as a tool to
perform an abstract idea" or "do no more than generally link the use of a judicial
exception to a particular technological environment." Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55;
see Customedia Techs., LLC V. Dish Network Corp., No. 2018- 2239, 2020 WL 1069742, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020) ("We have held that it is not enough, however, to
merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer
merely as a tool.").
Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19 do not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. As
the claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical
application, the claim is "directed to the judicial exception." Id. at 54.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount
to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are
simply a generic multi-label classifier. The claim amounts to no more than labeling a
document using a multi-label classifier. Taking the claimed elements either individually
or as ordered combination, that transform claims into patent-eligible application, since
claims merely recite use of already existing multi-label classifier, and there is no
"inventive concept" in play using multi-label classifier well- understood, routine, and
conventional activities commonly used in industry of labeling a document, since claims,
at most, attempt to limit abstract idea to particular technological environment, and such
limitation has been held insufficient to save claims in this context, and since dependent
claims are not rendered patent-eligible by recitation of additional steps, such as further
describing backbone layer; multi-label classifier is trained; processing the document;
even though additional limitations may narrow scope of claims. The claim as a whole
does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims
1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19, are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, 14-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kameni et al. (Skill prediction based on multi-label resume classification using CNN with model predictions explanation).
As per claim 1, Kameni discloses, a method comprising:
generating a set of sentences based on a document (Fig. 1, “A resume in natural language”);
predicting a set of labels for each sentence using a multi-label classifier, the multi- label classifier including a word embedding backbone layer, at least one of a unigram convolution and bigram convolution (Figures 1 and 2, section1. Convolution, “this operation is used to compute a similarity score between a filter and a word vector (Eq. 2). For simplicity, we considered filters with kernel size equal to 1 (filter height). It means that the convolution filters will specialize in recognizing single words”); and
labeling the document based on the set of labels (Section 4, Classification).
As per claim 2, Kameni discloses, wherein the word embedding backbone layer comprises a self-attended contextual word embedding backbone layer (Section 3.2.2. Training word embedding, “context-specific word embedding models better capture the relatedness between words and general models”).
As per claim 3, Kameni discloses, wherein the multi-label classifier is trained using a weakly labeled data set (Section 3.2.2. Training word embedding).
As per claim 7, Kameni disclseos, wherein predicting the set of labels for each sentence using the multi-label classifier further comprises: extracting word embeddings for the sentence using the word embedding backbone layer; convolving the word embeddings using the at least one of the unigram convolution and bigram convolution to generate convolved features; and inputting the convolved features into a fully connected layer to predict the set of labels (Figures 1 and 2).
As per claims 8-10, 14-17, and 20, they are analyzed and thus rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 1-3 and 7, because corresponding claims have similar limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6, 12-13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameni et al. (Skill prediction based on multi-label resume classification using CNN with model predictions explanation) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Hoffmann et al. (US 2019/0243841).
As per claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19, Kameni does not explicitly disclose, but Hoffmann discloses,
-further comprising preprocessing the document by: splitting the document into the set of sentences based on a predefined split condition; identifying named entities in each sentence; and filtering the set of sentences based on the identified named entities (Paragraphs 0048and 0066).
-wherein filtering the set of sentences comprises removing sentences that do not contain any named entities from a predefined list of entities (Paragraphs 0048and 0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kameni by including splitting document identifying named entities as taught by Hoffmann so as to the extraction rules are applied to the unstructured file to identify data relevant to the field associated with the corresponding extraction rule, and the data identified as relevant is confirmed (Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and overcome the non-statutory obvious ness double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of following reasons.
Regarding Double Patenting rejection:
the applicant asserted that a terminal disclaimer over US Patent 11,983,502 has been filed, however there were no such terminal disclaimer has been received.
Regarding Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §101:
The applicant argued as: “Under Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant submits that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. The Examiner's characterization of the claims as directed to "labeling a document" strips away the specific technical implementation recited in the claims. The claims do not merely recite the general concept of labeling a document. Rather, the claims recite a specific, multi-step technical process that involves generating a set of sentences based on a document, predicting a set of labels for each sentence using a multi-label classifier that includes a specific architecture-namely, a word embedding backbone layer combined with at least one of a unigram convolution and bigram convolution-and labeling the document based on the set of labels. This recited classifier architecture specifies particular machine learning components and their arrangement, which is not an activity that can be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. A person cannot mentally perform word embedding operations, unigram convolutions, or bigram convolutions on sentence data to generate label predictions. These are computational operations that are inherently tied to computer implementation.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims recite an abstract idea (a point not conceded), the claims nonetheless integrate any such abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. The claims recite a particular technical solution to the technical problem of automated multi-label document classification. Specifically, the claims recite a multi-label classifier with a defined architecture-a word embedding backbone layer and at least one of a unigram convolution and bigram convolution-that processes sentences to predict labels. This is not a generic invocation of a computer; it is a specific technical architecture for a classifier that provides a concrete improvement in how documents are labeled by machine learning systems. . . .
With respect to Step 2B, even if the claims were found to be directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application (points not conceded), the claims recite elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The specific combination of a word embedding backbone layer with unigram and bigram convolutions in a multi- label classifier for sentence-level document labeling is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The Examiner has not provided any evidence that this specific combination of technical elements was conventional at the time of filing.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully asserts that claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19 recite patent-eligible subject matter under § 101, and Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection”.
Examiner’s response: the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, because the examiner believe that the claims recite an abstract idea of “labeling a document” as stated in the rejection. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims directed to an abstract idea of labeling a document. The claims are drawn to process/computer program instruction/ device (a series of steps or acts) that similar to an idea 'Of itself such as an instantiated concept, plan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper'.
The examiner believes that this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims broadly recites the result (labeling a document including generating and predicting steps), rather than sufficiently claiming a means of achieving the result. The claims recite a Judicial exception relating to "labeling a document, along with a generic multi-label classifier (including a word embedding, unigram convolution or a bigram convolution) that simply used as tool to implement the abstract idea".
Therefore, the examiner believes that the claims as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19, are ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abul K. Azad whose telephone number is (571) 272-7599. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta, can be reached at (571) 272-7453.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to: (571) 273-8300.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA-22314 (Customer Service Window).
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).
May 18, 2026
/ABUL K AZAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights