DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21-23 have been examined.
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 Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The invention, as taught in Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21-23, is directed to “mental steps” and “mathematical steps” without significantly more.
The claims recite:
• defining,... a bounding box surrounding each character of the plurality of characters (i.e., mental steps)
• generating,... a graph representing a character of the plurality of characters (i.e., mental steps)
• the graph including a set of nodes (i.e., mental data or mathematical data) • each node of the set of nodes corresponding to one of the bounding boxes defined in the digital document (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• generating,… , training data for the machine-learning model based on the graph, wherein the training data includes a vector representation of the graph and an indicator of whether the character was manipulated or not manipulated (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• training data to learn relationships between vector representations of graphs and manipulated characters (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• a classification of a target character as manipulated or not manipulated (i.e., mental steps)
Claim 1
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “1. A computer-implemented method, comprising…” Therefore, it is a “method” (or “process”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 1 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 1 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• defining,... a bounding box surrounding each character of the plurality of characters (i.e., mental steps)
• generating,... a graph representing a character of the plurality of characters (i.e., mental steps)
• the graph including a set of nodes (i.e., mental data or mathematical data) • each node of the set of nodes corresponding to one of the bounding boxes defined in the digital document (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• generating,… , training data for the machine-learning model based on the graph, wherein the training data includes a vector representation of the graph and an indicator of whether the character was manipulated or not manipulated (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• training data to learn relationships between vector representations of graphs and manipulated characters (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• a classification of a target character as manipulated or not manipulated (i.e., mental steps)
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “processor” (and an “executing” of the “machine learning model”)
(2) A “digital document that includes a plurality of characters”
(3) An “accessing,”... of “a digital document that includes a plurality of characters”
(4) A “machine-learning model based on the training data to learn relationships between vector representations of graphs and manipulated characters, wherein the trained machine-learning model is configured to generate”
A “processor” (and an “executing” of the “machine learning model”) is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
This “processor” (and an “executing” of the “machine learning model”) limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “digital document that includes a plurality of characters” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
This “digital document that includes a plurality of characters” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
An “accessing,”... of “a digital document that includes a plurality of characters” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
This “accessing,”... of “a digital document that includes a plurality of characters” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “…machine-learning model based on the training data to learn relationships between vector representations of graphs and manipulated characters, wherein the trained machine-learning model is configured to generate” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f)(2) recites in part:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
This “…machine-learning model based on the training data to learn relationships between vector representations of graphs and manipulated characters, wherein the trained machine-learning model is configured to generate” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “processor” (and an “executing” of the “machine learning model”)
(2) A “digital document that includes a plurality of characters”
(3) An “accessing,”... of “a digital document that includes a plurality of characters”
(4) A “machine-learning model based on the training data to learn relationships between vector representations of graphs and manipulated characters, wherein the trained machine-learning model is configured to generate”
A “processor” (and an “executing” of the “machine learning model”) is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “digital document that includes a plurality of characters” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “accessing,”... of “a digital document that includes a plurality of characters” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “…machine-learning model based on the training data to learn relationships between vector representations of graphs and manipulated characters, wherein the trained machine-learning model is configured to generate” is a broad term which is described at a high level. Since the “machine-learning model” is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the machine-learning model to produce a result is not eligible. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The “machine-learning model” is well understood, routine and conventional, as shown by Applicant's Specification, paragraph [0020]:
[0020] The vector generator can generate a single vector representation of the graph. For example, each of the features for each node of a given graph can be concatenated into a single vector representation to numerically represent the graph for each character. Vector combination techniques other than concatenation can be used. The trained machine-learning model can receive the vector representation for the graph associated with a character and generate an output classifying the character as manipulated or not manipulated. In some implementations, the trained machine-learning model can be a decision tree model (e.g., a random forest model), which has been trained to compare the input vector representation of a graph with the graphs of other characters (both manipulated and not manipulated) of other digital documents used to train the random forest model. In other implementations, the trained machine-learning model can be a graph neural network, which has been trained using the graphs of other characters in a training set of digital documents. The present disclosure is not limited to the implementations described above, and thus, any suitable machine-learning model can be used to classify characters as manipulated or not manipulated.
Therefore, simply using the generic machine-learning model on data to produce a result is not eligible. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites:
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the graph representing the character further comprises:
defining a central node of the set of nodes of the graph, the central node corresponding to a bounding box surrounding the character; and
defining a plurality of neighboring nodes of the set of nodes of the graph, each neighboring node of the plurality of neighboring nodes corresponding to a bounding box surrounding another character of the plurality of characters.
Applicant’s Claim 2 merely teaches the mental steps of “defining a central node of the set of nodes” and “defining a plurality of neighboring nodes of the set of nodes of the graph.” It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 2 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites:
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the graph representing the character further comprises:
identifying a first y-axis value of a first bounding box in the digital document, the first bounding box surrounding the character;
identifying a second y-axis value of a second bounding box surrounding another character of the plurality of characters;
comparing the first y-axis value and the second y-axis value; and
determining that the first bounding box and the second bounding box are located on a same line of characters based on a result of the comparison.
Applicant’s Claim 3 merely teaches the mental steps of “identifying a first y-axis value of a first bounding box”, “identifying a second y-axis value of a second bounding box”, “comparing the first y-axis value and the second y-axis value”, and “determining that the first bounding box and the second bounding box are located on a same line of characters”. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 3 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites:
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein extracting the one or more features for each node of the set of nodes of the graph further comprises:
determining the one or more features of a given node, wherein each feature of the one or more features of the given node is determined by executing one or more techniques from amongst a plurality of techniques, and the plurality of techniques including:
a first technique for determining a height or width of the character based on a height or width of the bounding box surrounding the character;
a second technique for determining a y-value difference between the bounding box surrounding the character and a bounding box surrounding another character;
a third technique for determining a distance between the bounding box surrounding the character and the bounding box surrounding the other character;
a fourth technique for determining one or more Hu moments of the character contained within the bounding box; and
a fifth technique for determining a principal inertia axis associated with the bounding box surrounding the character.
Applicant’s Claim 4 merely teaches the mental steps of: “determining the one or more features of a given node,” and “determining a height or width of the character,” and “determining a y-value difference,” and “determining a distance,” and “determining one or more Hu moments,” and “determining a principal inertia axis associated with the bounding box surrounding the character.” It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 4 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites:
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein determining the one or more features for the given node further comprises:
determining the principal inertia axis by inputting at least Hu moment of the one or more Hu moments into a singular value decomposition (SVD) model.
Applicant’s Claim 5 merely teaches the mathematical calculation of “inputting at least Hu moment of the one or more Hu moments into a singular value decomposition (SVD) model”. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 5 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites:
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the machine-learning model includes a random forest model.
Applicant’s Claim 7 merely teaches the mental/mathematical step of: “a random forest model.” Note that it is called a “forest” because it is comprised of multiple “decision trees”.
[0073] The character vector 510 can be inputted into the random forest model 340. The random forest model 340 can include any number of decision trees, such as decision tree 520, decision tree 530, and decision tree 540. Each decision tree 520, 530, and 540 can classify a given vector representation of a graph. The random forest model 340 can ensemble the classifications of the various decision trees and determine a final classification, for example, the output 350 classifying the character represented by the character vector 510 as a manipulated character or as a pristine character (e.g., not manipulated).
The structures are described and depicted as “decision trees” in order for them to be grasped by the human mind. They are not actually stored and manipulated in the computer as actual tree shaped structures. The trees depict sequences of mental steps. They do not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor are they anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 7 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 8
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “8. A system, comprising…” Therefore, it is a “system” (or “apparatus”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 8 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 8 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• defining,... a bounding box surrounding each character of the plurality of characters (i.e., mental steps)
• generating,... a graph representing a character of the plurality of characters (i.e., mental steps)
• the graph including a set of nodes (i.e., mental data or mathematical data) • each node of the set of nodes corresponding to one of the bounding boxes defined in the digital document (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• generating,… , training data for the machine-learning model based on the graph, wherein the training data includes a vector representation of the graph and an indicator of whether the character was manipulated or not manipulated (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• training data to learn relationships between vector representations of graphs and manipulated characters (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• a classification of a target character as manipulated or not manipulated (i.e., mental steps)
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “processor” (and an “executing” of the “machine learning model”)
(2) A non-transitory computer-readable medium communicatively coupled to the one or more processors
(3) A “storing” of “program code that is executable by the one or more processors”
(4) A “digital document that includes a plurality of characters”
(5) A “machine-learning model based on the training data to learn relationships between vector representations of graphs and manipulated characters, wherein the trained machine-learning model is configured to generate”
A “processor” (and an “executing” of the “machine learning model”) is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
This “processor” (and an “executing” of the “machine learning model”) limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “non-transitory computer-readable medium communicatively coupled to the one or more processors” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
This “non-transitory computer-readable medium communicatively coupled to the one or more processors” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “storing” of “program code that is executable by the one or more processors” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
This “storing” of “program code that is executable by the one or more processors” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “digital document that includes a plurality of characters” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
This “digital document that includes a plurality of characters” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “…machine-learning model based on the training data to learn relationships between vector representations of graphs and manipulated characters, wherein the trained machine-learning model is configured to generate” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f)(2) recites in part:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
This “…machine-learning model based on the training data to learn relationships between vector representations of graphs and manipulated characters, wherein the trained machine-learning model is configured to generate” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “processor” (and an “executing” of the “machine learning model”)
(2) A non-transitory computer-readable medium communicatively coupled to the one or more processors
(3) A “storing” of “program code that is executable by the one or more processors”
(4) A “digital document that includes a plurality of characters”
(5) A “machine-learning model based on the training data to learn relationships between vector representations of graphs and manipulated characters, wherein the trained machine-learning model is configured to generate”
A “processor” (and an “executing” of the “machine learning model”) is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “non-transitory computer-readable medium communicatively coupled to the one or more processors” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “storing” of “program code that is executable by the one or more processors” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “digital document that includes a plurality of characters” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “…machine-learning model based on the training data to learn relationships between vector representations of graphs and manipulated characters, wherein the trained machine-learning model is configured to generate” is a broad term which is described at a high level. Since the “machine-learning model” is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the machine-learning model to produce a result is not eligible. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The “machine-learning model” is well understood, routine and conventional, as shown by Applicant's Specification, paragraph [0020]:
[0020] The vector generator can generate a single vector representation of the graph. For example, each of the features for each node of a given graph can be concatenated into a single vector representation to numerically represent the graph for each character. Vector combination techniques other than concatenation can be used. The trained machine-learning model can receive the vector representation for the graph associated with a character and generate an output classifying the character as manipulated or not manipulated. In some implementations, the trained machine-learning model can be a decision tree model (e.g., a random forest model), which has been trained to compare the input vector representation of a graph with the graphs of other characters (both manipulated and not manipulated) of other digital documents used to train the random forest model. In other implementations, the trained machine-learning model can be a graph neural network, which has been trained using the graphs of other characters in a training set of digital documents. The present disclosure is not limited to the implementations described above, and thus, any suitable machine-learning model can be used to classify characters as manipulated or not manipulated.
Therefore, simply using the generic machine-learning model on data to produce a result is not eligible. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 8 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites:
9. The system of claim 8, wherein the operations further include:
defining a central node of the set of nodes of the graph, the central node corresponding to a bounding box surrounding the character; and
defining a plurality of neighboring nodes of the set of nodes of the graph, each neighboring node of the plurality of neighboring nodes corresponding to a bounding box surrounding another character of the plurality of characters.
Applicant’s Claim 9 merely teaches the mental steps of “defining a central node of the set of nodes” and “defining a plurality of neighboring nodes of the set of nodes of the graph.” It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 9 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites:
10. The system of claim 8, wherein the operations further include:
identifying a first y-axis value of a first bounding box in the digital document, the first bounding box surrounding the character;
identifying a second y-axis value of a second bounding box surrounding another character of the plurality of characters;
comparing the first y-axis value and the second y-axis value; and
determining that the first bounding box and the second bounding box are located on a same line of characters based on a result of the comparison.
Applicant’s Claim 10 merely teaches the mental steps of “identifying a first y-axis value of a first bounding box”, “identifying a second y-axis value of a second bounding box”, “comparing the first y-axis value and the second y-axis value”, and “determining that the first bounding box and the second bounding box are located on a same line of characters”. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 10 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites:
11. The system of claim 8, wherein the operations further include:
determining the one or more features of a given node, wherein each feature of the one or more features of the given node is determined by executing one or more techniques from amongst a plurality of techniques, and the plurality of techniques include:
a first technique for determining a height or width of the character based on a height or width of the bounding box surrounding the character;
a second technique for determining a y-value difference between the bounding box surrounding the character and a bounding box surrounding another character;
a third technique for determining a distance between the bounding box surrounding the character and the bounding box surrounding the other character;
a fourth technique for determining one or more Hu moments of the character contained within the bounding box; and
a fifth technique for determining a principal inertia axis associated with the bounding box surrounding the character.
Applicant’s Claim 11 merely teaches the mental steps of: “determining the one or more features of a given node,” and “determining a height or width of the character,” and “determining a y-value difference,” and “determining a distance,” and “determining one or more Hu moments,” and “determining a principal inertia axis associated with the bounding box surrounding the character.” It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 11 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites:
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further include:
determining the principal inertia axis by inputting at least Hu moment of the one or more Hu moments into a singular value decomposition (SVD) model.
Applicant’s Claim 12 merely teaches the mathematical calculation of “inputting at least Hu moment of the one or more Hu moments into a singular value decomposition (SVD) model”. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 12 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites:
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the machine-learning model includes a random forest classifier.
Applicant’s Claim 7 merely teaches the mental/mathematical step of: “a random forest model.” Note that it is called a “forest” because it is comprised of multiple “decision trees”.
[0073] The character vector 510 can be inputted into the random forest model 340. The random forest model 340 can include any number of decision trees, such as decision tree 520, decision tree 530, and decision tree 540. Each decision tree 520, 530, and 540 can classify a given vector representation of a graph. The random forest model 340 can ensemble the classifications of the various decision trees and determine a final classification, for example, the output 350 classifying the character represented by the character vector 510 as a manipulated character or as a pristine character (e.g., not manipulated).
The structures are described and depicted as “decision trees” in order for them to be grasped by the human mind. They are not actually stored and manipulated in the computer as actual tree shaped structures. The trees depict sequences of mental steps. They do not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor are they anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 14 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 15
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “15. A computer-program product tangibly embodied in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, including instructions configured to cause a processing apparatus to perform operations including…” Therefore, it is not a “non-transitory computer readable medium.” Therefore, it is not a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “NO”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 15 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 15 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mental steps” and “mathematical steps”:
• defining,... a bounding box surrounding each character of the plurality of characters (i.e., mental steps)
• generating,... a graph representing a character of the plurality of characters (i.e., mental steps)
• the graph including a set of nodes (i.e., mental data or mathematical data) • each node of the set of nodes corresponding to one of the bounding boxes defined in the digital document (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• generating,… , training data for the machine-learning model based on the graph, wherein the training data includes a vector representation of the graph and an indicator of whether the character was manipulated or not manipulated (i.e., mental steps or mathematical steps)
• training data to learn relationships between vector representations of graphs and manipulated characters (i.e., mental data or mathematical data)
• a classification of a target character as manipulated or not manipulated (i.e., mental steps)
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) An “executing” of the “machine learning model”
(2) A “digital document that includes a plurality of characters”
(3) An “accessing” of “a digital document that includes a plurality of characters”
(4) A “digital document that includes a plurality of characters”
(5) A “machine-learning model based on the training data to learn relationships between vector representations of graphs and manipulated characters, wherein the trained machine-learning model is configured to generate”
A “executing” of the “machine learning model” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
This “executing” of the “machine learning model” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “digital document that includes a plurality of characters” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
This “digital document that includes a plurality of characters” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
An “accessing” of “a digital document that includes a plurality of characters” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
This “accessing” of “a digital document that includes a plurality of characters” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “digital document that includes a plurality of characters” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
This “digital document that includes a plurality of characters” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
A “…machine-learning model based on the training data to learn relationships between vector representations of graphs and manipulated characters, wherein the trained machine-learning model is configured to generate” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05 (f)(2) recites in part:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
This “…machine-learning model based on the training data to learn relationships between vector representations of graphs and manipulated characters, wherein the trained machine-learning model is configured to generate” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application and represents “insignificant extra-solution activity”. (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(I)(A)).
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) An “executing” of the “machine learning model”
(2) A “digital document that includes a plurality of characters”
(3) An “accessing” of “a digital document that includes a plurality of characters”
(4) A “digital document that includes a plurality of characters”
(5) A “machine-learning model based on the training data to learn relationships between vector representations of graphs and manipulated characters, wherein the trained machine-learning model is configured to generate”
A “executing” of the “machine learning model” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2016.05(f) recites:
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “digital document that includes a plurality of characters” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
An “accessing” of “a digital document that includes a plurality of characters” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “digital document that includes a plurality of characters” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II) recites:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
***
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “…machine-learning model based on the training data to learn relationships between vector representations of graphs and manipulated characters, wherein the trained machine-learning model is configured to generate” is a broad term which is described at a high level. Since the “machine-learning model” is well understood, routine and conventional, simply using the machine-learning model to produce a result is not eligible. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f) recites:
For claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two…
Further, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f)(2) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The “machine-learning model” is well understood, routine and conventional, as shown by Applicant's Specification, paragraph [0020]:
[0020] The vector generator can generate a single vector representation of the graph. For example, each of the features for each node of a given graph can be concatenated into a single vector representation to numerically represent the graph for each character. Vector combination techniques other than concatenation can be used. The trained machine-learning model can receive the vector representation for the graph associated with a character and generate an output classifying the character as manipulated or not manipulated. In some implementations, the trained machine-learning model can be a decision tree model (e.g., a random forest model), which has been trained to compare the input vector representation of a graph with the graphs of other characters (both manipulated and not manipulated) of other digital documents used to train the random forest model. In other implementations, the trained machine-learning model can be a graph neural network, which has been trained using the graphs of other characters in a training set of digital documents. The present disclosure is not limited to the implementations described above, and thus, any suitable machine-learning model can be used to classify characters as manipulated or not manipulated.
Therefore, simply using the generic machine-learning model on data to produce a result is not eligible. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 15 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites:
16. The computer-program product of claim 15, wherein the operation of generating the graph representing the character further comprises:
defining a central node of the set of nodes of the graph, the central node corresponding to a bounding box surrounding the character; and
defining a plurality of neighboring nodes of the set of nodes of the graph, each neighboring node of the plurality of neighboring nodes corresponding to a bounding box surrounding another character of the plurality of characters.
Applicant’s Claim 16 merely teaches the mental steps of “defining a central node of the set of nodes” and “defining a plurality of neighboring nodes of the set of nodes of the graph.” It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 16 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites:
17. The computer-program product of claim 15, wherein the operation of generating the graph representing the character further comprises:
identifying a first y-axis value of a first bounding box in the digital document, the first bounding box surrounding the character;
identifying a second y-axis value of a second bounding box surrounding another character of the plurality of characters;
comparing the first y-axis value and the second y-axis value; and
determining that the first bounding box and the second bounding box are located on a same line of characters based on a result of the comparison.
Applicant’s Claim 17 merely teaches the mental steps of “identifying a first y-axis value of a first bounding box”, “identifying a second y-axis value of a second bounding box”, “comparing the first y-axis value and the second y-axis value”, and “determining that the first bounding box and the second bounding box are located on a same line of characters”. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 17 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites:
18. The computer-program product of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise extracting the one or more features for each node of the set of nodes of the graph further by:
determining the one or more features of a given node, wherein each feature of the one or more features of the given node is determined by executing one or more techniques from amongst a plurality of techniques, and the plurality of techniques including:
a first technique for determining a height or width of the character based on a height or width of the bounding box surrounding the character;
a second technique for determining a y-value difference between the bounding box surrounding the character and a bounding box surrounding another character;
a third technique for determining a distance between the bounding box surrounding the character and the bounding box surrounding the other character;
a fourth technique for determining one or more Hu moments of the character contained within the bounding box; and
a fifth technique for determining a principal inertia axis associated with the bounding box surrounding the character.
Applicant’s Claim 18 merely teaches the mental steps of: “determining the one or more features of a given node,” and “determining a height or width of the character,” and “determining a y-value difference,” and “determining a distance,” and “determining one or more Hu moments,” and “determining a principal inertia axis associated with the bounding box surrounding the character.” It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 18 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites:
19. The computer-program product of claim 18, wherein determining the one or more features for the given node further comprises:
determining the principal inertia axis by inputting at least Hu moment of the one or more Hu moments into a singular value decomposition (SVD) model.
Applicant’s Claim 19 merely teaches the mathematical calculation of “inputting at least Hu moment of the one or more Hu moments into a singular value decomposition (SVD) model”. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 19 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 21
Claim 21 recites:
21. The method of claim 1, further comprising: converting the digital document into an image;
altering the bounding box surrounding the character by varied amounts (i.e., mental steps) to generate a plurality of manipulated images; and
incorporating the plurality of manipulated images into the training data (i.e., mental steps) for use in training the machine-learning model.
Applicant’s Claim 21 merely teaches the mental steps of altering a bounding box and incorporating “images” into other data. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 21 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 22
Claim 22 recites:
22. The method of claim 21, wherein the altering involves scaling or shifting the bounding box surrounding the character by an amount within a predefined range (i.e., mental steps).
Applicant’s Claim 22 merely teaches the mental steps of scaling or shifting a bounding box. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 22 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 23
Claim 23 recites:
23. The system of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise:
converting the digital document into an image (i.e., conventional display on a computer screen);
altering the bounding box surrounding the character by varied amounts to generate a plurality of manipulated images; and
incorporating the plurality of manipulated images into the training data for use in training the machine-learning model.
Applicant’s Claim 23 merely teaches conventionally displaying data and mental steps of altering a bounding box and incorporating “images” into other data. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 23 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21-23 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) because the closest prior art of Joren, et al., OCR Graph Features for Manipulation Detection in Documents, arXiv:2009.05158v2 [cs.CV], 14 SEP 2020, pp. 1-8 is inventors’ own art published within a year of the priority date of this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 FEB 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
Argument 1
Although Applicant respectfully disagrees with the rejections, the independent claims have been amended to advance prosecution. Even if the independent claims did recite an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), their additional elements would integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. This integration satisfies the requirements for patent eligibility under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the USPTO's subject matter eligibility framework. As recognized by MPEP § 2106.05(a), a claim that effects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or another area of technology or technical field is considered eligible at Step 2A, Prong Two, specifically because it integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. In light of these amendments and the USPTO's own guidance, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections be withdrawn.
The amended independent claims now recite a specific process for training a machine-learning model. The process involves a novel sequence of steps for generating training data and employing that training data to train the machine-learning model, so that it can accurately detect manipulated characters within digital documents.
Novel training techniques for machine-learning models are patent eligible. For example, Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential) held that a method of training a machine learning model was directed to a patent eligible improvement in machine learning technology itself. As another example, USPTO Example #39 relates to a novel method for "training a neural network for facial detection." The method involves the creation of distinct training sets and the staged training of a neural network. In that example, the USPTO determined that the claims were not directed to abstract ideas and, as such, were patent eligible.
Much like the above decisions and examples, the present claims are directed to a novel and specific method of training a machine-learning model so that it can accurately detect whether a character in a digital document is manipulated. The specification highlights the particular technical challenge in this context: detecting manipulation in digital documents is substantially more complex than in physical documents, primarily because digital documents typically lack the color variance and texture that aid in detection. See, e.g., Application, 1 [0003]. (“TYPICALLY”, but not necessarily…) To solve this technical problem, Applicant developed a unique training process that enables a machine-learning model to address this challenge effectively, thereby advancing both the field of machine learning and the specific technical area of digital document forensics.
By addressing a previously unresolved technical problem with a novel training methodology, the amended claims provide a tangible improvement to the functioning of machine-learning models and to the field of digital document manipulation detection. Under the USPTO's eligibility framework and consistent with recent precedential decisions, these claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the independent claims as amended are patent eligible, and Applicant requests that the rejections be withdrawn.
Under Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., the claims must disclose a technological improvement to the machine learning model itself. Applicant's claims simply apply generic, pre-existing machine learning models to new data environments (i.e., “generated” data vectors).
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 2
Because each of the remaining claims depends on and further limits one of the independent claims, each of the remaining claims is patent eligible for at least the same reasons as the independent claims. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections and allowance of all claims.
The independent claims are not eligible. Therefore, there is no eligible matter that may be incorporated by reference to the dependent claims.
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
The rejections stand.
Conclusion
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wilbert L. Starks, Jr., who may be reached Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST. or via telephone at (571) 272-3691 or email: Wilbert.Starks@uspto.gov.
If you need to send an Official facsimile transmission, please send it to (571) 273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful the Examiner’s Supervisor (SPE), Kakali Chaki, may be reached at (571) 272-3719.
Hand-delivered responses should be delivered to the Receptionist @ (Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22313), located on the first floor of the south side of the Randolph Building.
Finally, information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Moreover, 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) toll-free @ 1-866-217-9197.
/WILBERT L STARKS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122
WLS
28 MAY 2026
Prosecution Insights