DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The Request for Continued Examination filed 04/30/2026 has been acknowledged. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 13-14, 17 are cancelled. Claim 27 has been added. Claims 1, 4, 7-12, 15-16, 18-27 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 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, 18-27 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 collecting, analyzing text, and determining if text meets a classification condition, and in response to determining text not meeting or meeting the condition, either stopping or continuing analysis, the continuing analysis including media collection and analysis, and correlating the text analysis with media analysis for determining consistency, and classifying an entity as human trafficking.
The limitations of analyzing text to determine meeting a condition, deciding to continue analysis, 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 “processor” and “machine learning”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” language, “collecting” and “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person accessing a website and reading text to recognize particular words or phrases which are deemed suspicious and deciding whether to continue based on initial reading such as seeing sexually explicit words which meet certain conditions. Similarly, the limitations of “terminating” can further be performed by a person mentally deciding to stop reviewing a website. Furthermore, “collecting” and “processing” media and correlating the media and text, but for the “processor” and “machine learning” is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, but for “processor” and “machine learning”, “collecting”, “processing” and “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses the person deciding text is suspicious, further accessing and reviewing media content, and mentally identifying relationships 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 and instructions (such as claims 4 and 27), 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.
Hopper (US 20180288073 A1), which talks about analysis of dark web including initial analysis and additional analysis.
Chun et al. (US 20150279155 A1), which talks about detecting criminal activity including an initial analysis triggering additional analysis in transactions.
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 04/30/2026 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 Applicant first asserts the claimed invention is not directed towards a mental process as the invention recites machine learning analysis, conditional control, structed associations, and multiple analysis routes. The Examiner notes conditional controls, structured associations, and analysis route do not preclude an invention from being a mental process as structured associations and relationships are particular types of information (similar to commercial/legal relationships), and the concept of multiple analysis and conditional controls are further managing behavior (similar to In re Meyer and Bilski). Furthermore, although the invention does recite the utilization of machine learning models, this is similar to Example 48 claim 1 of the AI-related SME Examples, wherein the mere recitation of using a machine learning model does not include sufficient detail to render the concept non-abstract. The Applicant further asserts the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application similar to Bascom and Enfish. The Examiner notes unlike Bascom, the claimed invention or originally filed specification does not discuss particular arrangement of generic/known computer components or particular technical benefits. The claimed invention and originally filed specification further does not discuss particular technical benefits as shown in Enfish such as improved speed. The Applicant further asserts the claimed invention is significantly more as the invention optimizes computational resources through decision pipelines. The Examiner notes that although the claimed invention does discuss the concept of stopping analysis based on a first condition, this is still an abstract idea, as this is directed towards decision making and additional analysis based on an initial analysis similar to In re Meyer and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.. Unlike cases such as Enfish or Bascom, which discusses the particular technical problem being addressed through the particular arrangement, the present invention and originally filed specification does not specifically discuss the technical problems and solutions. As such, the Examiner asserts the claimed invention is directed towards a judicial exception without significantly more and the rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights