DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed August 4, 2025. Claims 1–2, 4, 6, and 9–14 are amended, and claims 3, 5, 7–8, and 15–18 are canceled. Currently, claims 1–2, 4, 6, and 9–14 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claim 15 for informalities. Accordingly, the previous objection to claim 15 is withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s Response necessitates new objections for informalities, and Examiner directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s Response necessitates new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and Examiner directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
With respect to the previous rejection of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As Applicant’s remarks are directed to amended subject matter, Examiner directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
With respect to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s remarks are persuasive. As a result, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1–2 and 10–11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the companies” as the final element of the limitation reciting “accessing the first and second patterns”. However, claim 1 previously recites “a plurality of companies”. As a result, Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “one or more of the plurality of companies” as the final element of the limitation reciting “accessing the first and second patterns” in order to avoid issues of clarity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 1 further recites “calculating … a score that quantifies a competitive relationship” and subsequently recites “the calculated score”. However, claims 4 and 6 subsequently recite “the score”. In view of the recited inconsistencies, Examiner recommends amending claim 1 to recite “the
Finally, claim 1 recites “the actual competitors of the particular company” in the element reciting “providing, for accessing and displaying”. However, claim 1 previously recites “one or more actual competitors” in the element for “determining a threshold score”. Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “the one or more actual competitors of the particular company” in the element reciting “providing, for accessing and displaying” in order to avoid issues of clarity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 2 recites “the set of potential competitors” in lines 1–2. However, claim 1 previously recites “a set of one or more potential competitors”. Examiner recommends amending claim 2 to recite “the set of one or more potential competitors” in order to avoid issues of clarity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 10 recites “the set of potential competitors” in lines 2–3. However, claim 1 previously recites “a set of one or more potential competitors”. Examiner recommends amending claim 10 to recite “the set of one or more potential competitors” in order to avoid issues of clarity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 11 recites “each calculated score” in line 2. As noted above, the claims inconsistently reference “the score” and “the calculated score”. In view of the above, Examiner recommends amending claim 11 to recite “each .
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 1–2, 4, 6, and 9–14 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.
Claim 1 recites “one or more processors” in each element reciting “means”. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for each recitation to reference the other recitations or intends to introduce different elements for “one or more processors”.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 as reciting “the one or more processors” in each element reciting “means” subsequent to the recitation of “means, including one or more processors, for searching and for retrieving documents on the network”.
Claim 1 recites “documents” in the element for “searching and for retrieving documents”. However, claim 1 previously recites “documents” in the preamble. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitation to reference the first recitation or intends to introduce second, different “documents”.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “searching and for retrieving the documents”.
Claim 1 recites “documents retrieved” in the elements for “storing … a plurality of company data structures” and “storing … one or more business line data structures”. As noted above, however, claim 1 recites “documents” in both the preamble and the element for “searching and retrieving”.
As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitations of “documents retrieved” to reference the first recitations of “documents” or intends to introduce second, different “documents retrieved”.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “the documents
Claim 1 further recites “the company” in the element for “storing … company data structures”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] a company” in the element for “storing … company data structures”.
Claim 1 recites “an electronic memory” in the element for “storing … one or more business line data structures”. However, claim 1 previously recites “an electronic memory” in the element for “storing … a plurality of company data structures”. As a result, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitation to reference the first recitation or intends to introduce a second, different “electronic memory”.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “[[an]] the electronic memory” in the element for “storing … one or more business line data structures”.
Claim 1 further recites “the one or more business lines” and “the business line” in lines 2 and 5 of the element for “storing … one or more business line data structures”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] one or more business lines” and “[[the]] a business line” in lines 2 and 5 of the element for “storing … one or more business line data structures”.
Claim 1 recites “the first and second patterns” and “the patterns” in lines 1 and 2 of the element reciting “accessing the first and second patterns”. Although claim 1 previously recites “first patterns” and “second patterns”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first and second patterns” and “the patterns” in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting “the first patterns and the second patterns” and “the first patterns and the second patterns” in lines 1 and 2 of the element reciting “accessing the first and second patterns”.
Claim 1 recites “one or more business lines” in line 3 of the element for “accessing the first and second patterns”. However, claim 1 previously recites “one or more business lines” in the element reciting “storing … one or more business line data structures”. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitation to reference the first recitation or intends to introduce a second, different “one or more business lines”.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “one or more of the one or more business lines” in line 3 of the element for “accessing the first and second patterns”.
Claim 1 recites “an associated one or more of the business lines” in the element for “tagging”. As noted above, claim 1 previously recites “one or more business lines”. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite for the same reasons as stated above.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “tagging with one or more tags each document with the one or more of the one or more business lines”.
Claim 1 further recites “one or more of the companies” in the element for “tagging”. As noted above, claim 1 previously recites “a plurality of companies” and “one or more of the companies”. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of “one or more of the companies” to reference the previous recitations or intends to introduce a new, distinct element.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “the one or more of the plurality of companies” in the element for “tagging”.
Claim 1 recites “the tags”, “the company data structures”, and “the business line data structures” in the element for “storing the tags”. However, claim 1 previously recites “one or more tags” in the element for “tagging”, “a plurality of company data structures” in the element for “storing … a plurality of company data structures” and “one or more business line data structures” in the element for “storing … one or more business line data structures”. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitations to reference the first recitations or intends to introduce a second, different elements.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “the one or more tags”, “the plurality of company data structures”, and “the one or more business line data structures” in the element for “storing the tags”.
Claim 1 recites “the company data structure” in the element for “accessing and searching the company data structure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] a company data structure” in the element for “accessing and searching the company data structure”.
Claim 1 further recites “the tags” in the elements for “accessing and searching the company data structure” and “accessing and searching the company data structure”. As noted above, claim 1 previously recites “one or more tags” in the element for “tagging”, and as a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite for the same reasons as stated above.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “the one or more tags” in the elements for “accessing and searching the company data structure” and “accessing and searching the company data structure”.
Claim 1 recites “the one or more companies associated with the particular business line” and “the business line data structure of the particular business line” in the element reciting “accessing and searching the company data structure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] one or more companies associated with the particular business line” and “[[the]] a business line data structure of the particular business line” in the element reciting “accessing and searching the company data structure”.
Claim 1 recites “the potential competitor to the particular company” and “the common business lines” in the element for “calculating”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] a potential competitor to the particular company” and “[[the]] each common business line” in the element for “calculating”.
Claim 1 recites “the company identifier of the potential competitor” in the element for “when the calculated score is above the threshold score”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] a company identifier of the potential competitor” in the element for “when the calculated score is above the threshold score”.
Finally, claim 1 recites “the stored company identifiers” in the element for “providing, for accessing and displaying”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] stored company identifiers” in the element for “providing, for accessing and displaying”.
In view of the above, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 9–14, which depend from claim 1, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 2, 4, 6, and 9–14 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “one or more processors” in each element reciting “means”. However, claim 1, from which claim 12 depends, previously recites “one or more processors”. As a result, the scope of claim 12 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitations of claim 12 to reference the recitations of claim 1.
For purposes of examination, claim 12 is interpreted as reciting “the one or more processors” in each element reciting “means”.
Claim 12 further recites “a score” and “the calculated score” in the elements reciting “calculating” and “associating”, respectively. However, claim 1, from which claim 12 depends, previously recites “a score” and “the calculated score”. As a result, the scope of claim 12 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitations of claim 12 to reference the recitations of claim 1.
For purposes of examination, and in view of the interpretation presented above, claim 12 is interpreted as reciting “a second score” and “the second score” in the elements reciting “calculating” and “associating”.
Claim 12 recites “the common business lines to the second company” in the element for “calculating”. Although claim 1 previously recites “common business lines to the particular company”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the common business lines to the second company”.
For purposes of examination, claim 12 is interpreted as reciting “relative importance of [[the]] each common business line to the second company”.
Finally, claim 12 recites “the company data structure for the second company” in the final element of the claim. Although claim 1 previously recites “a company data structure”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the company data structure for the second company” in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 12 is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] a company data structure for the second company”.
In view of the above, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant thoroughly review the claims for compliance with the requirements set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1–2, 4, 6, and 9–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–2, 4, 6, and 9–14 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “searching for documents”; “a plurality of company data structures for a plurality of companies, each company data structure [having] first patterns of document elements in documents including (i) word sets with a context of anchor words and (ii) a first set of one or more business line identifiers that identify a set of one or more business lines associated with the company”; “one or more business line data structures for the one or more business lines, each business line data structure [having] second patterns of document elements in documents including a second set of one or more business line identifiers that identify the business line and one or more company identifiers that identify one or more companies associated with the business line”; “accessing the first and second patterns and based on the patterns and determining a relevance score representing at least a number of anchor words in each document related to one or more business lines and one or more of the companies”; “tagging with one or more tags each document an associated one or more of the business lines and one or more of the companies if the relevance score is above a threshold value”; “accessing and searching the company data structure including the tags for a particular company and identifying, for the particular company, a particular business line from the set of one or more business lines identified in the company data structure for the particular company”; “accessing and searching the company data structure including the tags for a particular company and identifying the one or more companies associated with the particular business line as a set of one or more potential competitors of the particular company from the one or more company identifiers in the business line data structure of the particular business line”; “determining a threshold score for identifying one or more actual competitors of the particular company based at least partly on a number of business lines identified in the company data structure associated with the particular company and a number of companies identified in the business line data structure for each business line associated with the particular company”; “for each potential competitor, calculating a score that quantifies a competitive relationship of the potential competitor to the particular company based at least partly on a number of business lines in common between the particular company and the potential competitor and relative importance of the common business lines to the particular company”; “when the calculated score is above the threshold score, associating the potential competitor as an actual competitor of the particular company”; and “providing, for accessing and displaying, a set of data for the actual competitors of the particular company based on the company identifiers in the company data structure for the particular company.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity because the elements describe a process for analyzing and evaluating competitors of a company. Further, the elements recite mental processes because the elements embody observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind of by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 9–14 further describe the process for analyzing and evaluating competitors of a company and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2, 4, 6, and 9–14 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include means, including one or more processors, a network, an electronic memory, at least one of a set of electronic devices, and elements for “retrieving” documents, “storing” data structures, and “accessing” data. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the steps for “retrieving”, “storing”, and “accessing” are insignificant extrasolution activities to the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 9–14 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2, 4, 6, and 9–14 depend. As a result, claims 2, 4, 6, and 9–14 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include means, including one or more processors, a network, an electronic memory, at least one of a set of electronic devices, and elements for “retrieving” documents, “storing” data structures, and “accessing” data. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the steps for “retrieving”, “storing”, and “accessing” are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which identifies “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, “electronic recordkeeping”, and “storing and retrieving information in memory” as conventional computer functions. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 9–14 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2, 4, 6, and 9–14 depend. As a result, claims 2, 4, 6, and 9–14 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–2, 4, 6, and 9–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1–2, 4, 6, and 9–14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,546,311. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1–10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,546,311 anticipate each element of corresponding claims 1–2, 4, 6, and 9–14.
Claims 1–2, 4, 6, and 9–14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,403,654. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1–10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,403,654 anticipate each element of corresponding claims 1–2, 4, 6, and 9–14.
Claims 1–2, 4, 6, and 9–14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,020,271. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1–10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,020,271 anticipate each element of corresponding claims 1–2, 4, 6, and 9–14.
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 WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623