DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The Response filed 11/18/2025 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 4, 7-12, 15-16, 18 are amended. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 13-14, 17 are cancelled. Claims 23-26 are added. Claims 1, 4, 7-12, 15-16, 18-26 are currently pending and 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 uses “suspicious” in describing the text and media, however switches to “suspicion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-12, 15-16, 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “suspicious” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suspicious” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “suspicious” is only described through an example (text that is characteristic of escort services/dating site) prior to the detection of inconsistency between text and media. Although the originally filed specification does provide an example, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably appraise the scope of the invention as suspicious text vary widely between different topics and context. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably appraise if legitimate dating sites and services would also be considered suspicious, or generic profile information found on dating sites/services are also considered suspicious such as age and location. As such, the term “suspicious” is indefinite as the claims and originally filed specification fail to provide a standard for ascertaining to one of ordinary skill in the art as to what constituted suspicious text information.
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, 4, 7-12, 15-16, 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the steps of analyzing text and determining if text is suspicious or not, in response to determining text being suspicious, either stopping or continuing analysis, the continuing analysis including media analysis, and correlating the text analysis with media analysis for determining inconsistency indicating human trafficking, and classifying an entity as human trafficking.
The limitations of analyzing text to determine suspicion, analyzing media, correlating text and media, and classifying the entity, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components and computer instructions. That is, other than reciting “routine on a processor” and “using an artificial intelligence routine”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “routine on a processor” language, “analyzing” and “discarding” in the context of this claim encompasses a person reading text and recognizing particular words or phrases which are deemed suspicious and deciding whether to continue based on initial reading such as seeing sexually explicit words. Similarly, the limitation of analyzing media and correlating the media and text, but for the “analysis routine” and “artificial intelligence routine” is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, but for the “analysis routine” and “artificial intelligence routine”, “analyzing” and correlating” in the context of the claim encompasses the person deciding text is suspicious, further reviewing media content, and mentally identifying inconsistencies between the text and media such as seeing the people in the images wearing particular types of outfits in association with sexually explicit words. Similarly, the limitation of classifying, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “classifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the person deciding that the source/entity of the text and media is a human trafficker. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of a processor executing routines to perform the steps. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of executing instructions to recognize and analyze information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Furthermore, although the invention recites utilizing analysis and artificial intelligence routines, these are merely instructions to apply the exception to a computer environment, wherein the routines are computer instructions to perform particular analysis (Similar to Content Extraction and Electric Power Group) (See also MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims are further directed towards the judicial exception without significantly more. The dependent claims provide limitations on the particular type of software (such as claim 4), the particular conditions/rules for analysis (such as claims 7-12, 15-16, 25), further defining the subject of analysis and source of information (such as claims 19-24), and further abstract steps (such as claims 18 and 25). These are still directed towards the judicial exception as these further define the abstract elements such as further defining the information and relationship between the information. They are not significantly more as they do not further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Furthermore, the limitations directed towards the preprocessing of information and the blocking of information is also abstract similar to Content Extraction and Bascom. The dependent claims is not patent eligible.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
As currently claimed, the invention is directed towards the identification and classification of entities as human trafficking based on analysis. The invention performs analysis on text from the entity to produce a text analysis and determine if the text is suspicious of human trafficking. Based on text suspicion, the invention either stops analysis or continues to perform media analysis. The invention then correlates the text analysis and the media analysis to identify inconsistencies between text and media, wherein the inconsistencies are identified using trained artificial intelligence, and classifying the entity as human trafficking based on inconsistency.
The Examiner notes as discussed in the non-final rejection of 08/27/2025, the previous independent claim was anticipated by Wagster which discloses the concept of identifying suspicious entities including performing text and media analysis. Fokker further teaches the concept of prioritization for additional analysis. Chiam, Zadeh, Jonnalagadda, and Banerjee further teaches the concept of determining out of place/context and expected elements including particular subject matter. Although these references teach elements of the previous claims, these references fail to teach/suggest the concept of performing a first analysis, a second analysis based on the first analysis, and a third correlation between the first and second analysis.
Upon further search and consideration, the Examiner notes the following reference(s):
Jakobsson (US 20180091453 A1), which talks about security analysis of messages including initial and additional screening.
Adderly et al. (US 20160148093 A1), which talks about generating questions based on previous responses for the purpose of collecting evidentiary information including utilizing multiple stages of analysis.
Li et al. (US 20210263965 A1), which talks identifying discrepancies between text and video.
Yarra et al. (US 20210224885 A1), which talks about moderation of sales and services including identifying discrepancies between text description and images.
Kumar et al. (US 20200151499 A1), which talks about moderating image content including identification and analysis of image objects.
Although these references further teach elements of the claimed invention including identification of discrepancies, identification of suspicious content, and multi-stage analysis, these references fail to teach/suggest the combination of performing a text analysis and determining additional analysis based on text analysis, determining media analysis, and correlating the text and media analysis as claimed. As such, the claims are determined to be non-obvious over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the Applicant’s arguments as directed towards the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been updated to reflect changes to the amended claims. The Applicant further asserts the claims as amended is not directed towards a judicial exception as the steps are non-mental and technological in nature. The Examiner notes that the concept of analyzing information including the concept of analyzing a first portion of information is still abstract, similar to how a person makes determinations based on title or summary information. For example, a person performing online shopping can read the title of a product listing to determine if the listing requires additional review or consideration. As such, the concept and steps are still considered judicial exceptions. The Applicant further asserts the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application as the claims are directed towards a specific process-implemented workflow. The Examiner notes as discussed above, although the claimed invention does include computer/technology language, these are directed towards execution of stored instructions by a generic computer processor. Still furthermore, although the invention does recite the internet, the internet is merely used for gathering information as well as filter information from. The Applicant further asserts the claimed invention is a technical improvement as the invention efficiently and reliably detect human trafficking indicators in an online environment. The Examiner notes as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) and Fairwarning, the collection and analysis of information, including those which take place on the internet, can still recite a mental process. As such, the Examiner asserts the claimed invention directed towards a judicial exception without significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT M CAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11-7.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ILANA SPAR can be reached at (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VINCENT M CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622