DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to the following communication: Amendment filed on 3 February 2025.
Claim(s) 19-34 is/are pending and present for examination.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-18 have been cancelled.
Claims 19-34 have been newly added.
No claims have been amended.
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.
As per claims 15 and 16, the rejections are withdrawn in view of the cancellation of said claims.
Claims 28 and 34 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 “most closely” in claims 28 and 34 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “most” 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.
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 19-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 19, the claim(s) recite(s) “receiving, as input, a natural language text document”, “splitting… the document into passages…”, “converting… each passage”, and “generating a vector embedding for the entire document.”
The aforementioned limitations are interpreted to be the observation or judgment about the actions the examiner has taken, therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
For example, the “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user receiving and mentally evaluating a document. For example, “splitting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally evaluating and parsing the document into smaller portions. For example, “converting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making changes to the passage. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally creating an embedding. 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.
Under step 2A, Prong 2, of the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg., we determine whether any of the additional elements beyond the abstract idea integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54; MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05. The 2019 Guidance provides exemplary considerations that are indicative of an additional element or combination of elements integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by additional elements. In particular, the claim recites using a processor to perform the steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
At Step 2B, all claim elements, with the exception of the processor and memory, correspond to concepts determined to be abstract ideas for the reasons discussed above in connection with Prong One of the analysis and/or merely constitute extra-solution activity under Prong Two. Applicant's lack of a detailed disclosure of computer hardware or functional requirements and the lack of details describing a computer-specific implementation of the recited functions (such as might have been indicated by inclusion of a detailed flow chart depicting unconventional computer operations and/or routines for performing each of the claimed steps), persuades us that the omitted details are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
Consistent with the Berkheimer Memorandum, the claims merely recite generic computer components performing generic computing functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. 5 See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (The "use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions; all of these computer functions are 'well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]' previously known to the industry.") ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71-73); see also Benson, 409
U.S. at 65 (Noting that a "computer operates then upon both new and previously stored data. The general-purpose computer is designed to perform operations under many different programs."); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that using generic computing components like a microprocessor or user interface does not transform an otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (indicating components such as an "interface" are generic computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (citing Alice and Mayo) accord Berkheimer Memo 3-4.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computing of measures only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (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 computing is nothing more than what can be handled by a conventional document ingestion system and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
As per claim 20, the claimed feature of “storing” is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., necessary data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). At step 2A, prong two, considering these limitations individually and the claim as a whole, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The elements directed to “storing” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data outputting in conjunction with the abstract idea.
As per claims 21, 22, and 29-32, the limitations are directed towards further defining aggregation operations as a weighted average, a sum operation, or a cosine similarity, which are interpreted to be the observation or judgment about embeddings. Therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the instant limitations cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
As per claims 23-24, the limitations are directed towards storing metadata, which is an additional element beyond the above identified judicial exception. These additional elements represent mere extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data processing in conjunction with the abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the updating a unified contextual graph with data from a database only adds well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (See 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). The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As per claims 25 and 27, the limitations are directed towards generating an embedding which is an additional element beyond the above identified judicial exception. These additional elements, in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally creating an embedding. 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.
As per claims 26 and 33, the limitations are directed towards further limitation a document to that of a contract, which is an additional element beyond the above identified judicial exception. These additional elements, in the context of this claim, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data processing in conjunction with the abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the updating a unified contextual graph with data from a database only adds well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (See 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). The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As per claims 28 and 34, the claim(s) recite(s) “receiving, as input, a document”, “splitting the document into passages…”, “converting, by a transformer, each passage”, “generating an embedding for the entire document”, “retrieving… document passage embeddings”, “retrieving… the corresponding aggregation embedding”, “generating… an embedding”, “generating a query-conditioned document embedding”, and “calculating a similarity.”
The aforementioned limitations are interpreted to be the observation or judgment about the actions the examiner has taken, therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
For example, the “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user receiving and mentally evaluating a document. For example, “splitting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally evaluating and parsing the document into smaller portions. For example, “converting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making changes to the passage. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally creating an embedding. For example, “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining the level of similarity. 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.
Under step 2A, Prong 2, of the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg., we determine whether any of the additional elements beyond the abstract idea integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54; MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05. The 2019 Guidance provides exemplary considerations that are indicative of an additional element or combination of elements integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by additional elements. In particular, the claim recites using a processor to perform the steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
At Step 2B, all claim elements, with the exception of the processor and memory, correspond to concepts determined to be abstract ideas for the reasons discussed above in connection with Prong One of the analysis and/or merely constitute extra-solution activity under Prong Two. Applicant's lack of a detailed disclosure of computer hardware or functional requirements and the lack of details describing a computer-specific implementation of the recited functions (such as might have been indicated by inclusion of a detailed flow chart depicting unconventional computer operations and/or routines for performing each of the claimed steps), persuades us that the omitted details are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
Consistent with the Berkheimer Memorandum, the claims merely recite generic computer components performing generic computing functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. 5 See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (The "use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions; all of these computer functions are 'well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]' previously known to the industry.") ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71-73); see also Benson, 409
U.S. at 65 (Noting that a "computer operates then upon both new and previously stored data. The general-purpose computer is designed to perform operations under many different programs."); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that using generic computing components like a microprocessor or user interface does not transform an otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (indicating components such as an "interface" are generic computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (citing Alice and Mayo) accord Berkheimer Memo 3-4.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computing of measures only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (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 computing is nothing more than what can be handled by a conventional document ingestion system and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19, 20, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hranj et al, USPGPUB No. 2024/0289366, filed on 27 February 2023, and published on 29 August 2024.
As per independent claim 19, Hranj teaches:
A computer-implemented method for document ingestion comprising:
receiving, as input, a natural language document {See Hranj, [0038], wherein this reads over “In examples, the document (or a copy of the document) is retrieved or accessed from a data source (e.g., the user device or any other data store accessible to the computing environment)”};
splitting, by a splitter, the document into passages {See Hranj, [0038], wherein this reads over “A segmenting mechanism, such as embedding engine 112, separates the document into one or more segments (e.g., sections, paragraphs, sentences, or document objects)”}, wherein each passage is a pre-configured number of tokens in length {See Hranj, [0015], wherein this reads over “A semantic embedding, as used herein, refers to a representation of a segment that is created by converting high-dimensional data to low-dimensional data in such a manner that the high-dimensional data and the low-dimensional data are semantically similar. In one example, each semantic embedding is represented as a feature vector (e.g., an n-dimensional vector of numerical features that represents one or more objects)”; and [0038], wherein this reads over “In examples, each semantic embedding represents a feature vector that comprises semantic information for a corresponding segment. The feature vector may comprise numerical values representing the semantic information”};
converting, by a transformer, each passage in sequence to a passage embedding {See Hranj, [0038], wherein this reads over “A semantic embedding is generated for each of the segments of the document”};
lastly, generating a vector embedding for the entire document as an aggregation vector embedding, by performing an aggregating operation on the passage vector embeddings {See Hranj, [0041], wherein this reads over “At operation 212, a document summary is generated for the document. In examples, the summarization determination is provided to a summary generation mechanism, such as summarization engine 116. The summary generation mechanism generates a textual document summary for the document based on the summarization determination. In some examples, the summary generation mechanism retrieves or accesses the document, as discussed above at operation 206. The summarization determination is then applied to the document to generate the document summary.”}.
As per dependent claim 20, Hranj teaches:
The method of Claim 19 further comprising: storing the passage vector embeddings and aggregation vector embedding in a vector embedding storage engine {See Hranj, [0039], wherein this reads over “At operation 208, the semantic embeddings for the document and the context for the user request are provided to a knowledge system that has been personalized for the user, such as personal knowledge system 114”}.
As per dependent claim 25, Hranj teaches:
The method of Claim 19, wherein splitting the document into passages is done by splitting the document into its document specific sections and then splitting each section into passages; and generating an embedding for the entire document is done by performing an aggregating operation on the passage embeddings to create section embeddings and then performing an aggregating operation on the section embeddings to create the aggregation embedding {See Hranj, [0015], wherein this reads over “If the received user request is for a summary of a document, the document is separated into multiple segments. In examples, each segment corresponds to a section, a paragraph, a sentence, an image, or another document object of the document. A semantic embedding is generated for each segment. A semantic embedding, as used herein, refers to a representation of a segment that is created by converting high-dimensional data to low-dimensional data in such a manner that the high-dimensional data and the low-dimensional data are semantically similar. In one example, each semantic embedding is represented as a feature vector (e.g., an n-dimensional vector of numerical features that represents one or more objects)”}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hrang, in view of Mosenia et al, USPGPUB No. 2024/0020321, filed on 7 December 2022, and published on 17 January 2024.
As per dependent claim 21, Hrang, in combination with Mosenia, discloses:
The method of Claim 19, wherein the aggregation operation is a weighted average operation {See Mosenia, [0052], wherein this reads over “For example, the distance may be based on a similarity metric such as an inner product or cosine metric. In some implementations, aggregating includes forming a weighted average of item embedding vectors representing the item embeddings 350(1), 350(2), . . . , 350(N)”}.
The prior art of Hrang fails to disclose each and every feature of the instant claim. Mosenia is directed to the invention of category recommendation with implicit item feedback. Specifically, Mosenia discloses a category embedding that is generated from an aggregation of item embeddings associated with a candidate category. Moreover, Mosenia discloses that the aggregating may include forming a weighted average of item embedding vectors. That is, Mosenia discloses the use of form aggregated embeddings via a weight average calculation (i.e., a weighted average operation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to improve the prior art of Hrang with that of Mosenia such that the aggregation operations of Hrang may be further include utilizing a weighted average calculation as disclosed by Mosenia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the aforementioned combination in order to better provide aggregation operations.
As per dependent claim 22, Hrang, in combination with Mosenia, discloses:
The method of Claim 19, wherein the aggregation operation is a sum operation {See Mosenia, [0052], wherein this reads over “In some implementations, aggregating includes forming a normalized average/sum/median of item embedding vectors representing the item embeddings 350(1), 350(2), . . . , 350(N), or in other words normalizing the aggregated embedding”}.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hrang, in view of Official Notice.
As per dependent claim 23, the Examiner takes Official Notice that the feature of “wherein metadata identifying whether an embedding is a passage embedding or an aggregation embedding is stored with each embedding” would have been obvious and widely-known. That is, the feature of identifying a passage embedding or an aggregation embedding
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hrang, in view of Torres et al, USPGPUB No. 2021/0073532, filed on 28 August 2020, and published on 11 March 2021.
As per dependent claim 24, Hrang, in combination with Torres, discloses:
The method of Claim 20, wherein metadata identifying what type of a document an embedding is for, is stored with each embedding {See Torres, [0021], wherein this reads over “Document records may include a type of document predicted by the document model 230, extracted structured data included in the extraction predictions 222 generated by the extraction model 220 and other metadata (e.g., the language, user identifier (id), product id, screen id, source, and other context of the transaction document)”}.
The prior art of Hrang fails to disclose each and every feature of the instant claim. Torres is directed to the invention of metamodeling for confidence prediction in machine learning based document extraction. Specifically, Torres discloses accurate automated processing based on predicted probabilities. Moreover, Torres discloses that document records may include a type of document predicted by the document model. That is, Torres discloses the determining and storage of a file type (i.e., a type of document). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to improve the prior art of Hrang with that of Torres such that the metadata of Hrang may be further include a type of document as disclosed by Torres. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the aforementioned combination in order to better enhance metadata.
Claim(s) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hrang, in view of Coquard et al, USPGPUB No. 2020/0327151, filed on 10 April 2019, and published on 15 October 2020.
As per dependent claim 26, Hrang, in combination with Coquard, discloses:
The method of Claim 19, wherein the document is a contract {See Coquard, [0092], wherein this reads over “Non-limiting embodiments of a system and method for processing contract documents allow for an analysis of contract documents based on unlabeled (e.g., unclassified) contract data. By analyzing contract documents by clauses and sentence embeddings corresponding to clauses, contract documents may be efficiently analyzed and compared to other clauses of other contract documents without being formatted in a particular way or according to a template.”}.
The prior art of Hrang fails to disclose each and every feature of the instant claim. Coquard is directed to the invention of processing contract documents. Specifically, Coquard discloses parsing contract documents to identify a plurality of clauses. That is, Coquard discloses the parsing of documents according to a sequence of words, and thereby generating a plurality of representation vectors (i.e., a contract document). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to improve the prior art of Hrang with that of Coquard such that the document parsing of Hrang may be further include contract documents as disclosed by Coquard. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the aforementioned combination in order to further include contracts in document processing.
As per dependent claim 27, Hrang, in combination with Coquard, discloses:
The method of Claim 26, wherein splitting the contract into passages is done by splitting the document into contract clauses and then splitting each contract clause into passages {See Coquard, [0095], wherein this reads over “Still referring to FIG. 1, the parsing engine 102 may be configured to parse the contract document 100 to detect words, sentences, and clauses. A word is one or more characters and a sentence is a sequence of words. A clause includes one or more sentences grouped together and set apart from other sentences, or that are intended to be separate from other sentences, in a contract document. For example, a clause may include a paragraph, one or more off-set sentences, one or more sentences separated by a delimiter or title (e.g., heading), and/or the like. The parsing engine 102 may output one or more data structures that include one or more clauses from the inputted contract document 100. For example, the parsing engine 102 may output textual data with delimiters separating the different clauses and/or clause titles, an array of textual elements representing different clauses and/or clause titles, and/or the like”}; and
generating an embedding for the entire contract is done by performing an aggregating operation on the passage embeddings to create contract clause embeddings and then performing an aggregating operation on the contract clause embeddings to create the aggregation embedding {See Hranj, [0041], wherein this reads over “At operation 212, a document summary is generated for the document. In examples, the summarization determination is provided to a summary generation mechanism, such as summarization engine 116. The summary generation mechanism generates a textual document summary for the document based on the summarization determination. In some examples, the summary generation mechanism retrieves or accesses the document, as discussed above at operation 206. The summarization determination is then applied to the document to generate the document summary.”}.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-34 are allowable over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant asserts the argument that “the claims describe a combination of steps operating in a nonconventional and non-generic way to store natural language text documents and to compare natural language text documents.” See Amendment, page 9. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that the limitations of the current claims are performed by the generically recited computer/processor and that the use of generic computer components to parse documents into passages and embeddings does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. As to the claim as a whole, we find that there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology as generating vector embeddings is well-understood, routine, and conventional, and therefore does not add significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii), "receiving or transmitting data over a network").
The Examiner next considers whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. The Examiner determines that the claim lacks additional elements that improve a computer or other technology or implement the abstract idea in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Nor does it include an additional element that transforms or reduces a particular article to a different state or thing or applies the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking it to a particular technological environment. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 4–5.
The instant claim does not recite features of a user interface as does Example 37 of the 2019 PEG Examples. See Appeal Br. 12. Example 37’s claims organize icons automatically on a GUI. 2019 PEG Examples 2–3. Such features are not claimed here. Core Wireless illustrates why claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The claimed user interface displayed a summary window of un-launched applications reached from a menu without launching the applications. Id. at 1362–63. This display of application data improved prior art interfaces that displayed an index and required users to navigate to an application and open it to access data. Id. at 1363. Here, claim 1 recites no similar features. It transmits, for presentation via a user interface, the results of abstract processes on a generic interface that is not a particular machine that is integral to the claim. Any such improvements to network affinity of a creator with other members results from generic computer automation rather than a technological improvement to computers or other technology. See Credit Acceptance, 859 F.3d at 1055;see Spec. ¶¶ 1, 35, 46, 59. Accordingly, the Examiner determines that the instant claim lack additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and provide an improvement over the prior art.
Accordingly, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
Applicant asserts the argument that Hranj’s disclosure of a system and method for providing textual summaries based on personalized prior knowledge differs from an aggregate vector embedding. See Amendment, page 11. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that Hranj discloses “A semantic embedding, as used herein, refers to a representation of a segment that is created by converting high-dimensional data to low-dimensional data in such a manner that the high-dimensional data and the low-dimensional data are semantically similar. In one example, each semantic embedding is represented as a feature vector (e.g., an n-dimensional vector of numerical features that represents one or more objects).” See Hranj, [0015]. That is, Hranj specifically discloses that the semantic embedding may be a feature vector which would read upon the claimed feature of a vector embedding under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAUL KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM.
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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached on (571) 270-0474. 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.
/Paul Kim/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2152
/PK/