DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/08/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 11 is canceled.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are pending and have been examined.
This action is in reply to the papers filed on 01/08/2026 (effective filing date 05/14/2019).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted: 07/11/2024, has/have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Amendment
The present Office Action is based upon the original patent application filed on 07/11/2024 as modified by the amendment filed on 01/08/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
New Matter Rejection - Regarding Claim 1 (Claims 13 and 14 contain features similar to Claim 1), Applicant’s originally filed specification (PGPub. 2024/0362733) fails to disclose the amended claimed features as follows: presenting together with the first amendment candidate, a comment associated with a past contract document from which the first amendment candidate is derived.
Applicant’s specification at [0014] discuses “present[ing] the first amendment candidate together with a comment tied to the first amendment candidate”, but, the originally filed specification does not disclose “presenting together with the first amendment candidate, a comment associated with a past contract document from which the first amendment candidate is derived”.
Applicant is directed to address each rejected claim individually by specifically indicating support, in the originally filed specification (i.e., page, paragraph, and line), for the rejected claimed feature(s).
Reasons For Allowance
Prior-Art Rejection withdrawn
Claims xxx are allowed. The closest prior art (See PTO-892, Notice of References Cited) does not teach the claimed:
The invention teaches… and the prior-art teaches…, however, the prior-art does not teach…
The closest prior-art (xxx) teach the features as disclosed in Non-final Rejection (xxxx), however, these cited references do not teach and the prior-art does not teach at least the following:
determining, at a second time after associating the information corresponding to the first loyalty card with the logged location, that a second user computing device is located within a specified distance of the logged location using a second positioning system of the second user computing device; in response to determining that the second user computing device is located within the specified distance of the logged location of the first user computing device at the first time of detecting: retrieving information corresponding to a second loyalty card, the second loyalty card being associated with the merchant and the second user computing device; and displaying, by the second user computing device, data describing the second loyalty card.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101 - Withdrawn
Per Applicant’s amendments and arguments and considering new guidance in the MPEP, the rejections are withdrawn. Specifically, in Applicant’s Remarks (dated 03/14/2017, pgs. 8-11), Applicant traverses the 35 USC §101 rejections arguing that the amended claims recite new limitations that are not abstract, amount to significantly more, are directed to a practical application, etc… For example, Applicant argues….
In support of their arguments, Applicant cites to the following recent Fed. Cir. court cases (i.e., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, Berkheimer, Core Wireless, McRO, Enfish, Bascom, DDR, etc…).
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 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims recite a method, system/apparatus, and computer readable medium for processing documents and information.
Claim 1 recites (Currently Amended) [a] method for processing documents comprising: accepting an input contract document; extracting attribute information from the input contract document; presenting a plurality of first amendment candidates of the input contract document based on one or more versions of past contract documents that contain contents similar to the attribute information of the input contract document from past contract documents; receiving an input of selection of a first amendment candidate from the plurality of first amendment candidates; setting the selected first candidate into the input contract document as a provision after modification; and presenting together with the first amendment candidate, a comment associated with a past contract document from which the first amendment candidate is derived.
The claims are being rejected according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 1-10 and 12 recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of a process. Claims 14-20 recite a system/apparatus and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine. Claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium/computer product and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of a manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The following tables identify the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea. The column that identifies the additional elements will be relevant to the analysis in step 2A, prong two, and step 2B.
Claim 1: Identification of Abstract Idea and Additional Elements, using Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
Claim Limitation
Abstract Idea
Additional Element
1. A method for processing documents comprising:
No additional elements are positively claimed.
accepting an input contract document;
This limitation includes the step(s) of: accepting an input contract document.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to communicating known information (e.g., accepting and/or presenting known information) to facilitate a method for processing documents and information which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
extracting attribute information from the input contract document;
This limitation includes the step(s) of: extracting attribute information from the input contract document.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to communicating known information (e.g., accepting and/or presenting known information) to facilitate a method for processing documents and information which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
presenting a plurality of first amendment candidates of the input contract document based on one or more versions of past contract documents that contain contents similar to the attribute information of the input contract document from past contract documents;
This limitation includes the step(s) of: presenting a plurality of first amendment candidates of the input contract document based on one or more versions of past contract documents that contain contents similar to the attribute information of the input contract document from past contract documents.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to communicating known information (e.g., accepting and/or presenting known information) to facilitate a method for processing documents and information which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
receiving an input of selection of a first amendment candidate from the plurality of first amendment candidates;
This limitation includes the step(s) of: receiving an input of selection of a first amendment candidate from the plurality of first amendment candidates.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to communicating known information (e.g., accepting and/or presenting known information) to facilitate a method for processing documents and information which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
setting the selected first candidate into the input contract document as a provision after modification; and
This limitation includes the step(s) of: setting the selected first candidate into the input contract document as a provision after modification.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to communicating known information (e.g., accepting and/or presenting known information) to facilitate a method for processing documents and information which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
presenting together with the first amendment candidate, a comment associated with a past contract document from which the first amendment candidate is derived.
This limitation includes the step(s) of: presenting together with the first amendment candidate, a comment associated with a past contract document from which the first amendment candidate is derived.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to communicating known information (e.g., accepting and/or presenting known information) to facilitate a method for processing documents and information which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
As shown above, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract idea of processing documents and information, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a mental process and/or a method of organizing human activity. Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
The method claims do NOT recite any additional elements. Consequently, at least the method claims must be construed as abstract and capable of being performed mentally and/or with manually with just pen and paper. The Office encourages Applicant to positively claim the structural features necessary to perform each individual method step and feature.
Next, the aforementioned claims (apparatus and computer readable claims) recite additional functional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: a communication interface for presenting or communicating information. Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extrasolution activity. (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle in to a patentable process.”).
The aforementioned claims (apparatus and computer readable claims) also recite additional technical elements including: a processor and/or a storage medium to execute the apparatus, a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” for storing executable instructions, a “communication interface” for communicating and transmitting data. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements listed above that relate to computing components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as communicating, receiving, processing, analyzing, and outputting/displaying data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. There is no technological problem that the claimed invention solves. Rather, the computer system is invoked merely as a tool. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field, apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease, apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s), and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
Next, under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Simply put, as noted above, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer (or any other technology), and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements relating to computing components amount to no more than applying the exception using a generic computing components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed computer components (i.e., additional elements) includes any generic computing components that are capable of being programmed to communicate, receive, send, process, analyze, output, or display data.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified as extra-solution activity, amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Capturing an image (code) with an RFID reader. Ritter, US Patent No. 7734507 (Col. 3, Lines 56-67); “RFID: Riding on the Chip” by Pat Russo. Frozen Food Age. New York: Dec. 2003, vol. 52, Issue 5; page S22.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
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.
Outputting/Presenting data to a user. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Using a machine learning model to determine user segment characteristics for an ad campaign. https://whites.agency/blog/how-to-use-machine-learning-for-customer-segmentation/.
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea), and are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Independent system/apparatus claim 14 and CRM claim 13 also contains the identified abstract ideas, with the additional elements of a processor and storage medium, which are a generic computer components, and thus not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale above.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12, and 15-20 further describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of the dependent claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Invention Could be Performed Manually
It is conceivable that the invention could be performed manually without the aid of machine and/or computer. For example, Applicant claims accepting a document and presenting a first amendment. Each of these features could be performed manually and/or with the aid of a simple generic computer to facilitate the transmission of data.
See also Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., and In re Venner, which stand for the concept that automating manual activity and/or applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices to accomplish the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Here, applicant is merely claiming computers to facilitate and/or automate functions which used to be commonly performed by a human.
Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007) "[a]pplying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years…"). The combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is commonly available and understood in the art.
In In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958), the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04, III Automating a Manual Activity.
MPEP 2144.04 III - Automating a Manual Activity and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) further stand for and provide motivation for using technology, hardware, computer, or server to automate a manual activity.
Therefore, the Office finds no improvements to another technology or field, no improvements to the function of the computer itself, and no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no limitations in any of the claims that transform the exception (i.e., the abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
Claim Rejections - Not an Ordered Combination
None of the limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility, because taken as a whole, the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity.
Claim Rejections - Preemption
Allowing the claims, as presently claimed, would preempt others from for processing documents and information. Furthermore, the claim language only recites the abstract idea of performing this method, there are no concrete steps articulating a particular way in which this idea is being implemented or describing how it is being performed.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
18/769,395 – Claim 1. (Currently Amended) A method for processing documents comprising:
accepting an input contract document;
extracting attribute information from the input contract document;
presenting a plurality of first amendment candidates of the input contract document based on one or more versions of past contract documents that contain contents similar to the attribute information of the input contract document from past contract documents;
receiving an input of selection of a first amendment candidate from the plurality of first amendment candidates;
setting the selected first candidate into the input contract document as a provision after modification; and
presenting together with the first amendment candidate, a comment associated with a past contract document from which the first amendment candidate is derived.
Claims 1, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Gupta et al. 2014/0033068; in view of Hurd et al. 2004/0148285; in view of Fukuda et al. 2013/0198201.
18/769,395 – Claim 1. (Currently Amended) Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 teaches A method for processing documents comprising: accepting an input contract document (Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 [0025 - term "electronic content" includes any digital data that may be presented to a reviewer (e.g., visually or audibly presented), such as an electronic document, page-descriptive electronic content such as a page-descriptive electronic document…] The term "electronic content" includes any digital data that may be presented to a reviewer (e.g., visually or audibly presented), such as an electronic document, page-descriptive electronic content such as a page-descriptive electronic document, a media stream, a web page, a hypertext document, an image, digital video or a video recording, digital audio or an audio recording, animation, a markup language document, such as a HyperText Markup Language (HTML) or eXtensible Markup Language (XML) document, a form having blank components to accept entered data, or data describing the application of a GUI.); extracting attribute information from the input contract document (Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 [0026 - content elements include portions of a page-descriptive document or other electronic document, such as pieces of electronic text or other material within an electronic document, comments…] A "content element" includes any part of electronic content that is defined or discernable as a part. For example, a content element may be automatically discerned from a characteristic of the content element itself (e.g., a paragraph of an electronic document, or a file format designation) or may be manually defined by a reviewer (e.g., a reviewer-selected collection of words in an electronic document, a reviewer-selected portion of a digital image). Examples of content elements include portions of a page-descriptive document or other electronic document, such as pieces of electronic text or other material within an electronic document, comments, dynamic content in the form of portions of media streams, such as sections of digital video or frames or sets of frames of digital video or digital audio, dynamic content in the form of segments or frames of animations, electronic forms, form templates, form elements, form data, actuatable element specifications or executable instructions, and various elements presentable or accessible by reviewers within electronic content, including instances of scripted and non-scripted dynamic content and the like.); presenting a plurality of first amendment candidates of the input contract document based on one or more versions of past contract documents that contain contents similar to the attribute information of the input contract document from past contract documents (Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 [0002] Reviewers participating in this shared review process typically make markups and comments, and sometimes changes, to an individualized version of the document, with each version having its own comments, markups, and other annotations. A set of modified documents may then be sent back to the document creator. The document creator then has the task of sorting through each of possibly many document copies and consolidating the comments (and changes) into a single edited copy. Some comments and changes may be the same across the versions, but the creator of the document still needs to sort through all of the information to make such a determination. [0037] While reviewing or revising electronic content that includes content elements, the reviewer may wish to record or otherwise keep track of a particular state of revision. One way of tracking this state is by saving a version of the electronic content, and adding it to the content archive history. As part of the document history, comments may be added, deleted, or changed (collectively, "updated") by various reviewers. Monitoring, recording, and display/replay of revisions to comments over time, as part of the archive history, is addressed by the various mechanisms described herein.); receiving an input of selection of a first amendment candidate from the plurality of first amendment candidates (Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 [0059 - ability to select a first (e.g., more recent) version 172 and a second (e.g., older) version 174 of the document] In the example GUI 108, the ability to select a first (e.g., more recent) version 172 and a second (e.g., older) version 174 of the document 124 is provided. Information 158 describing the time, date, and author of the first version 172 is shown above the time line 104, while the information 160 describing the time, date, and author of the second version 174 is shown below the time line 104. However, various embodiments are not to be so limited.); setting the selected first candidate into the input contract document as a provision after modification (Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 [0062] Both the upper and lower tracks of the history bar 100 can be live for setting the first (e.g., current) version 172 and the second (e.g., prior) version 174 of the document 124. Using a mouse over operation, the version highlight and label can be made to change to show the version that will be selected for viewing if the mouse is clicked. The reader should note that the second version track normally does not exist directly beneath or to left of the first version track, since designers of many embodiments may decide that prior versions cannot be selected as a "more recent version" than the first version. Here it can be seen that the comment history includes only versions 106, 108 of the comments in existence between the time the first document version 172 was created, and the time that the second version 174 was created, five versions prior to the most recent version 170.); and presenting together with the first amendment candidate, a comment associated with a past contract document from which the first amendment candidate is derived (Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 [0063 - FIG. 2 illustrates the display of document and comment revision history] FIG. 2 illustrates the display of document and comment revision history 100 using a time line 104 along with additional tracked changes as part of a GUI 102, according to various embodiments. As was the case in FIG. 1, versions along the time line 104 can be indicated using version indicators: some version indicators comprise a dot version indicator 276, indicating one of several versions on the time line 104; other versions indicators comprise circle version indicators (e.g., indicators associated with the first and second document versions 172, 174), to indicate a version on the time line 104 that has been selected by the system and/or a reviewer. Other graphic figures can be used as version indicators.).
Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 may not expressly disclose the “provision” features, however, Hurd et al. 2004/0148285 teaches these features as follows (Hurd et al. 2004/0148285 [0032 - various form contract provisions or concerning suggested negotiation positions and/or negotiation limits for various form contract provisions] For example, if a system user in an information technology department requires a confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement for use with a potential vendor of computer software, the system user accesses the system 100 and selects the information technology department from the list of business groups, units, or departments. Upon being presented with a list of form contracts available for use by users in the information technology department, the system user may select and review particular form contracts and the information associated with them before selecting a form contract for launching or downloading. After downloading a copy of the selected form contract, the system user may then edit the form contract using word processing computer software, as necessary, during negotiation of the contract to reflect the current state of the agreement reached by the parties, while being able to refer back to information in the system's database pertaining to the selected form contract (i.e., including, for example, to information concerning alternative provisions which may be incorporated by the system user in addition to, or in lieu of, various form contract provisions or concerning suggested negotiation positions and/or negotiation limits for various form contract provisions).). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 to include the features as taught by Hurd et al. 2004/0148285. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 may not expressly disclose the “amendment candidate” features, however, Fukuda et al. 2013/0198201 teaches these features as follows (Fukuda et al. 2013/0198201 [Abstract - Amendment candidates are then displayed according to…] A system for storing a specification document to be checked on a storage device in a computer readable format. A computer implemented method which stores a graph structure of rules for performance of checking, and creates a rule application table of whether a rule is an application subject. For each node rule of the graph structure, average entropy of whether a specification satisfies the rules is derived by searching the graph structure of rules. While performing a depth-first searching of the graph structure of rules, a priority order index is derived from the rule application table for each node rule. Amendment candidates are then displayed according to value of the priority order index. [0022 - displays amendment candidate rules according to] The system according to the present invention next, while performing depth-first searching the rule graph structure, derives a priority order index from the rule application table with respect to each node rule. Then the system displays amendment candidate rules according to value of the priority order index.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 to include the features as taught by Fukuda et al. 2013/0198201. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
18/769,395 – Claim 13. (Currently Amended) 13. (Currently Amended) Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program including instructions that, when executed by a processor, causes an information processing apparatus connected to a document processing apparatus through a communication interface, to (Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 [0105-0106; 0110-0111; Fig. 6]):
18/769,395 – Claim 14. (Currently Amended) 14. (Currently Amended) Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 teaches An information processing apparatus comprising: a communication device configured to communicate with a document processing apparatus through a communication interface (Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 [0105-0106; 0110-0111; Fig. 6]);
Claims 13 and 14, have similar limitations as of Claim 1, therefore they are REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim 1.
Claims 4-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Gupta et al. 2014/0033068; in view of Hurd et al. 2004/0148285; in view of Fukuda et al. 2013/0198201; in view of Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990.
18/769,395 – Claim 4. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, further comprising: Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 may not expressly disclose the following features, however, Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990 teaches extracting the one or more versions of the past contract documents that contain contents similar to the input contract document from the past contract documents dividing the input contract document per provision; and presenting the first amendment candidate in a divided first version of the extracted past contract document based on a corresponding provision of the divided input contract document (Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990 [0022] While performing refactoring of the contract, the refactoring module 105 extracts terms and conditions in the contract, in light of various pre-defined criteria, identifies and establishes relationships between the extracted terms and conditions, and displays the extracted contents, along with the established relationship(s), to the user as a summarized version of the original contract, which in turn helps the user easily understand contents of the contract.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 to include the features as taught by Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
18/769,395 – Claim 5. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, further comprising: Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 may not expressly disclose the following features, however, Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990 teaches extracting the one or more versions of the past contract documents that contain contents similar to the input contract document from the past contract documents; and presenting a second amendment candidate of the input contract document based on contents of a second version of the extracted past contract document in the extracted one or more versions of the past contract documents, together with or alternative to the first amendment candidate (Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990 [0022] While performing refactoring of the contract, the refactoring module 105 extracts terms and conditions in the contract, in light of various pre-defined criteria, identifies and establishes relationships between the extracted terms and conditions, and displays the extracted contents, along with the established relationship(s), to the user as a summarized version of the original contract, which in turn helps the user easily understand contents of the contract.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 to include the features as taught by Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
18/769,395 – Claim 6. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, further comprising: Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 may not expressly disclose the following features, however, Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990 teaches extracting the one or more versions of the past contract documents that contain contents similar to the input contract document from the past contract documents; and presenting the first amendment candidate with an indication of a portion amended from contents of a version of the extracted past contract document immediately before a first version of the extracted past contract document (Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990 [0022] While performing refactoring of the contract, the refactoring module 105 extracts terms and conditions in the contract, in light of various pre-defined criteria, identifies and establishes relationships between the extracted terms and conditions, and displays the extracted contents, along with the established relationship(s), to the user as a summarized version of the original contract, which in turn helps the user easily understand contents of the contract.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 to include the features as taught by Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
18/769,395 – Claim 15. (New) The information processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the processor is configured to extract the one or more versions of the past contract documents that contain contents similar to the input contract document from the past contract documents, and present the first amendment candidate with an indication of a portion amended from contents of a version of the extracted past contract document immediately before a first version of the extracted past contract document.
Claim 15, has similar limitations as of Claim 6, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim 6.
Claims 8, 10, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Gupta et al. 2014/0033068; in view of Hurd et al. 2004/0148285; in view of Fukuda et al. 2013/0198201; in view of Dimerman 2019/0138571.
18/769,395 – Claim 8. (Previously Presented) The method according to claim 1, Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 may not expressly disclose the following features, however, Dimerman 2019/0138571 teaches wherein the past contract documents that are based on a similar template document to that of the input document comprise contract documents containing a plurality of common provisions, sentences, phrases or terms with the input contract document, or contract documents containing commonly shared extracted feature amounts with the input contract document (Dimerman 2019/0138571 [0004 - contract template that includes basic contractual clauses and provisions] The formation of a contractual agreement typically involves a negotiation process between the parties involved in forming the agreement. In doing so, business enterprises will begin contract negotiations with a contract template that includes basic contractual clauses and provisions that provide a starting point for negotiations to begin.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 to include the features as taught by Dimerman 2019/0138571. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
18/769,395 – Claim 10. (Previously Presented) The method according to claim 4, Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 may not expressly disclose the following features, however, Dimerman 2019/0138571 teaches wherein the corresponding provision of the divided input contract document is amended based on the first amendment candidate of the input contract document (Dimerman 2019/0138571 [0035] In an embodiment, contract repository 108 stores digital data representing contract documents. A contract document is an electronic document that specifies terms of a contractual agreement. A contract document may exist within a contract set, which may include one or more contract documents. A contract set may include a template document, which may be the first version of a series of contract document versions. A contract document version may be a revised document version of a template document. [0058] For example, FIG. 3A shows a timeline of different document versions of a contract set over time. Document ‘1’ denotes the first document version on the timeline while document ‘6’ denotes the last document version on the timeline. Although the timeline provides useful information regarding the temporal ordering of contract document versions, such as the time difference between contract versions 302, the timeline provides no indication of how similar any two documents may be with respect to each other. For example, document ‘6’ may be nearly identical to document ‘1’ after revisions 2-6, but the timeline provides no indication of this similarity.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 to include the features as taught by Dimerman 2019/0138571. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
18/769,395 – Claim 18. (New) The information processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein a corresponding provision of the divided input contract document is amended based on the first amendment candidate of the input contract document.
Claim 18, has similar limitations as of Claim 10, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim 10.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Gupta et al. 2014/0033068; in view of Hurd et al. 2004/0148285; in view of Fukuda et al. 2013/0198201; in further view of Hebbar et al. 2014/0032489.
18/769,395 – Claim 2. (Previously Presented) The method according to claim 1, further comprising: Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 may not expressly disclose the following features, however, Hebbar et al. 2014/0032489 teaches separating a plurality of versions of the input contract document based on an amendment history of the input contract document (Hebbar et al. 2014/0032489 [0042 - server 110 may maintain each revision as a revision history document, or as separate documents, each having a unique version number] The server 110 may maintain each revision as a revision history document, or as separate documents, each having a unique version number. The user may then request a specific version of the document from the server 110. In one example, a user creates a document titled "My Summer Vacation" on an application running on a document server located at a URL given as http://acrobat.com. The server creates a new entry in its database, for example, including a document ID number, a version of the document, the title, a textual description of the document. The document ID number may be for example ID=200, and the version=1. This information uniquely identifies the document, as no other document may be stored in the database associated with the document server having document ID=200 and version=1. The document ID field and the version field create a unique key in the database. The stored document is a collaborative document. The user then modifies the collaborative document stored on the server using an application resident on the server; and the server creates a new entry in the database, specifying document ID=200, but now version=2, corresponding to the modified version of the collaborative document. The title and textual information are unchanged, while the version changed. The user then creates a portable copy of the document to store on the local machine. The portable copy is created using the server application, wherein the server application creates the portable copy and encodes the document ID and version number into the portable document. Specifically, in this example, the server application would add link information including the document ID=200 and version=2. The user, or another user, may continue to modify the collaborative document, which the server stores in the database as document ID=200 and version=3. When the user opens a portable copy of the document, the viewing application on the client machine, such as Adobe Reader.RTM. by Adobe Incorporated, San Jose, Calif., sends the document ID=200 to the server and requests the most recent version number. This may involve accessing a specific URL corresponding to the document, such as http://acrobat.com/CheckVersion?ID=200, or through other signaling mechanisms or protocols. The URL for this request does not change with subsequent versioning of the collaborative document having document ID=200. In this situation, the server would respond indicating the most recent version=3. The client viewing application would compare the response, version=3, with the version field stored in the portable document, version=2, and use this information to determine an update is available.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 to include the features as taught by Hebbar et al. 2014/0032489. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Gupta et al. 2014/0033068; in view of Hurd et al. 2004/0148285; in view of Fukuda et al. 2013/0198201; in further view of Dorai et al. 2018/0314680.
18/769,395 – Claim 2. (Previously Presented) The method according to claim 1, further comprising: Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 may not expressly disclose the following features, however, Dorai et al. 2018/0314680 teaches separating a plurality of versions of the input contract document based on an amendment history of the input contract document (Dorai et al. 2018/0314680 [0051 - each version of an electronic document can be stored in a separate data file and each revision in the revision history refers to a different data file for the electronic document] In one example implementation, each version of an electronic document can be stored in a separate data file and each revision in the revision history refers to a different data file for the electronic document. To identify changes to an electronic document which a given user has not yet accessed, one can access the revision associated with a time stamp or other indication of the given user's last access, and compare the current version to that last version.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 to include the features as taught by Dorai et al. 2018/0314680. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Gupta et al. 2014/0033068; in view of Hurd et al. 2004/0148285; in view of Fukuda et al. 2013/0198201; in further view of Pennington et al. 2016/0253303.
18/769,395 – Claim 3. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, further comprising: Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 may not expressly disclose the following features, however, Pennington et al. 2016/0253303 teaches searching a database; extracting the one or more versions of the past contract documents that contain contents similar to the input contract document from the past contract documents; and presenting the first amendment candidate of the input contract document based on contents of a first version of the extracted past contract document in the extracted one or more versions of the past contract documents (Pennington et al. 2016/0253303 [0044 - If the two form documents are not of the same version or otherwise substantially similar, the field extraction engine may ignore the form document from the form repository if the differences are substantial, or attempt to determine similarities and extract field metadata for fields that are substantially similar between the two versions] The field extraction engine may additionally verify that the form document from the form repository is of the same version and otherwise substantially similar to the captured image of the form document. If the two form documents are not of the same version or otherwise substantially similar, the field extraction engine may ignore the form document from the form repository if the differences are substantial, or attempt to determine similarities and extract field metadata for fields that are substantially similar between the two versions. In this latter instance, the field extraction engine may perform Steps 210 and 212, as discussed above, as to the portions that were not found to be substantially similar.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 to include the features as taught by Pennington et al. 2016/0253303. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Gupta et al. 2014/0033068; in view of Hurd et al. 2004/0148285; in view of Fukuda et al. 2013/0198201; in further view of Takemoto 2008/0231879.
18/769,395 – Claim 3. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, further comprising: Dimerman 2019/0138571 may not expressly disclose the following features, however, Takemoto 2008/0231879 teaches searching a database; extracting the one or more versions of the past contract documents that contain contents similar to the input contract document from the past contract documents; and presenting the first amendment candidate of the input contract document based on contents of a first version of the extracted past contract document in the extracted one or more versions of the past contract documents (Takemoto 2008/0231879 [0013] Furthermore, another embodiment of the present invention provides an image processing apparatus including a data inputting part for inputting image data, a document recognizing part for recognizing the image data as a document, a document storing part for storing document data corresponding to the document recognized by the document recognizing part, and a stored document managing part for managing the document data stored in the document storing part, the image processing apparatus including: a document analyzing part configured to analyze the input image data; a text writing part configured to obtain an analysis result from the document analyzing part and write the analysis result in a text format; a similar document extracting part configured to determine similarity between the input image data and the document data stored in the document storing part and extract the document data having document identifying information similar to that of the input image data; a part configured to associate the analysis result to the document data stored in the document storing part and register the analysis result in correspondence with the document data; a part configured to associate the document identifying information to the input image data and the extracted document data and register the document identifying information in correspondence with the stored document data; a part configured to search for a target document by referring to the registered analysis result. [0151] Moreover, in a case of registering search information corresponding to image data of a document received by facsimile or by electronic mail, the image data are subjected to the same above-described processes performed on the image data of a document input by scanning. That is, the image data are analyzed based on the above-described search condition (2), similar documents are extracted based on the analysis result, and search information extracted from the similar document is registered in association with the target document to be stored.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 to include the features as taught by Takemoto 2008/0231879. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claims 4-7 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Gupta et al. 2014/0033068; in view of Hurd et al. 2004/0148285; in view of Fukuda et al. 2013/0198201; in further view of Hebbar et al. 2014/0032489.
18/769,395 – Claim 4. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, further comprising: Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 may not expressly disclose the following features, however, Hebbar et al. 2014/0032489 teaches extracting the one or more versions of the past contract documents that contain contents similar to the input contract document from the past contract documents dividing the input contract document per provision; and presenting the first amendment candidate in a divided first version of the extracted past contract document based on a corresponding provision of the divided input contract document (Hebbar et al. 2014/0032489 [0042 - server 110 may maintain each revision as a revision history document, or as separate documents, each having a unique version number] The server 110 may maintain each revision as a revision history document, or as separate documents, each having a unique version number. The user may then request a specific version of the document from the server 110. In one example, a user creates a document titled "My Summer Vacation" on an application running on a document server located at a URL given as http://acrobat.com. The server creates a new entry in its database, for example, including a document ID number, a version of the document, the title, a textual description of the document. The document ID number may be for example ID=200, and the version=1. This information uniquely identifies the document, as no other document may be stored in the database associated with the document server having document ID=200 and version=1. The document ID field and the version field create a unique key in the database. The stored document is a collaborative document. The user then modifies the collaborative document stored on the server using an application resident on the server; and the server creates a new entry in the database, specifying document ID=200, but now version=2, corresponding to the modified version of the collaborative document. The title and textual information are unchanged, while the version changed. The user then creates a portable copy of the document to store on the local machine. The portable copy is created using the server application, wherein the server application creates the portable copy and encodes the document ID and version number into the portable document. Specifically, in this example, the server application would add link information including the document ID=200 and version=2. The user, or another user, may continue to modify the collaborative document, which the server stores in the database as document ID=200 and version=3. When the user opens a portable copy of the document, the viewing application on the client machine, such as Adobe Reader.RTM. by Adobe Incorporated, San Jose, Calif., sends the document ID=200 to the server and requests the most recent version number. This may involve accessing a specific URL corresponding to the document, such as http://acrobat.com/CheckVersion?ID=200, or through other signaling mechanisms or protocols. The URL for this request does not change with subsequent versioning of the collaborative document having document ID=200. In this situation, the server would respond indicating the most recent version=3. The client viewing application would compare the response, version=3, with the version field stored in the portable document, version=2, and use this information to determine an update is available.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 to include the features as taught by Hebbar et al. 2014/0032489. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
18/769,395 – Claim 5. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, further comprising: Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 may not expressly disclose the following features, however, Hebbar et al. 2014/0032489 teaches extracting the one or more versions of the past contract documents that contain contents similar to the input contract document from the past contract documents; and presenting a second amendment candidate of the input contract document based on contents of a second version of the extracted past contract document in the extracted one or more versions of the past contract documents, together with or alternative to the first amendment candidate (Hebbar et al. 2014/0032489 [0042 - server 110 may maintain each revision as a revision history document, or as separate documents, each having a unique version number] The server 110 may maintain each revision as a revision history document, or as separate documents, each having a unique version number. The user may then request a specific version of the document from the server 110. In one example, a user creates a document titled "My Summer Vacation" on an application running on a document server located at a URL given as http://acrobat.com. The server creates a new entry in its database, for example, including a document ID number, a version of the document, the title, a textual description of the document. The document ID number may be for example ID=200, and the version=1. This information uniquely identifies the document, as no other document may be stored in the database associated with the document server having document ID=200 and version=1. The document ID field and the version field create a unique key in the database. The stored document is a collaborative document. The user then modifies the collaborative document stored on the server using an application resident on the server; and the server creates a new entry in the database, specifying document ID=200, but now version=2, corresponding to the modified version of the collaborative document. The title and textual information are unchanged, while the version changed. The user then creates a portable copy of the document to store on the local machine. The portable copy is created using the server application, wherein the server application creates the portable copy and encodes the document ID and version number into the portable document. Specifically, in this example, the server application would add link information including the document ID=200 and version=2. The user, or another user, may continue to modify the collaborative document, which the server stores in the database as document ID=200 and version=3. When the user opens a portable copy of the document, the viewing application on the client machine, such as Adobe Reader.RTM. by Adobe Incorporated, San Jose, Calif., sends the document ID=200 to the server and requests the most recent version number. This may involve accessing a specific URL corresponding to the document, such as http://acrobat.com/CheckVersion?ID=200, or through other signaling mechanisms or protocols. The URL for this request does not change with subsequent versioning of the collaborative document having document ID=200. In this situation, the server would respond indicating the most recent version=3. The client viewing application would compare the response, version=3, with the version field stored in the portable document, version=2, and use this information to determine an update is available.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 to include the features as taught by Hebbar et al. 2014/0032489. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
18/769,395 – Claim 6. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, further comprising: Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 may not expressly disclose the following features, however, Hebbar et al. 2014/0032489 teaches extracting the one or more versions of the past contract documents that contain contents similar to the input contract document from the past contract documents; and presenting the first amendment candidate with an indication of a portion amended from contents of a version of the extracted past contract document immediately before a first version of the extracted past contract document (Hebbar et al. 2014/0032489 [0042 - server 110 may maintain each revision as a revision history document, or as separate documents, each having a unique version number] The server 110 may maintain each revision as a revision history document, or as separate documents, each having a unique version number. The user may then request a specific version of the document from the server 110. In one example, a user creates a document titled "My Summer Vacation" on an application running on a document server located at a URL given as http://acrobat.com. The server creates a new entry in its database, for example, including a document ID number, a version of the document, the title, a textual description of the document. The document ID number may be for example ID=200, and the version=1. This information uniquely identifies the document, as no other document may be stored in the database associated with the document server having document ID=200 and version=1. The document ID field and the version field create a unique key in the database. The stored document is a collaborative document. The user then modifies the collaborative document stored on the server using an application resident on the server; and the server creates a new entry in the database, specifying document ID=200, but now version=2, corresponding to the modified version of the collaborative document. The title and textual information are unchanged, while the version changed. The user then creates a portable copy of the document to store on the local machine. The portable copy is created using the server application, wherein the server application creates the portable copy and encodes the document ID and version number into the portable document. Specifically, in this example, the server application would add link information including the document ID=200 and version=2. The user, or another user, may continue to modify the collaborative document, which the server stores in the database as document ID=200 and version=3. When the user opens a portable copy of the document, the viewing application on the client machine, such as Adobe Reader.RTM. by Adobe Incorporated, San Jose, Calif., sends the document ID=200 to the server and requests the most recent version number. This may involve accessing a specific URL corresponding to the document, such as http://acrobat.com/CheckVersion?ID=200, or through other signaling mechanisms or protocols. The URL for this request does not change with subsequent versioning of the collaborative document having document ID=200. In this situation, the server would respond indicating the most recent version=3. The client viewing application would compare the response, version=3, with the version field stored in the portable document, version=2, and use this information to determine an update is available.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 to include the features as taught by Hebbar et al. 2014/0032489. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
18/769,395 – Claim 7. (Previously Presented) The method according to claim 1, further comprising: Dimerman 2019/0138571 may not expressly disclose the following features, however, Hebbar et al. 2014/0032489 teaches presenting the first amendment candidate together with a comment tied to the first amendment candidate (Hebbar et al. 2014/0032489 [0020] Each user may open a new document which may be accessed by others. This networked collaborative environment allows real-time collaboration. Multiple users may edit the same text document concurrently, with the ability to view edits and comments as they occur. Multiple versions of the collaborative document, including edits, comments, amendments, and other changes made by the multiple user, are stored on the server. This ensures access to all materials by each user. In one example, the server only stores the current version to avoid any confusion. In another example, the system stores multiple versions of the document to track the changes and edits made. In still another example, the server stores a current version, as well as an amendment file which identifies all changes made to the document. The amendment file may also include a timestamp indicating the time and date of each change, and also identify the user making the change.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 to include the features as taught by Hebbar et al. 2014/0032489. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
18/769,395 – Claim 16. (New) The information processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the processor is configured to present the first amendment candidate together with a comment tied to the first amendment candidate.
Claim 16, has similar limitations as of Claim 7, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim 7.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Gupta et al. 2014/0033068; in view of Hurd et al. 2004/0148285; in view of Fukuda et al. 2013/0198201; in further view of Kleinschnitz, JR. et al. 2016/0188700.
18/769,395 – Claim 9. (Previously Presented) The method according to claim 1, Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 may not expressly disclose the following features, however, Kleinschnitz, JR. et al. 2016/0188700 teaches wherein the first amendment candidate of the input contract document is a revied version of the extracted past contract document (Kleinschnitz, JR. et al. 2016/0188700 [0054] At step 304, the content extractor 210 extracts content from the data that was generated, modified, and/or accessed at step 302. For example, the content extractor 210 may extract the subject line, author name, recipient name(s), time and date sent, and body text from an email; the content extractor 210 may extract the host name, invitee name(s), subject line, time and date, and body text from a calendar entry; the content extractor 210 may extract the author name, version number, creation and/or modification date, and body text from an electronic document; and the content extractor 210 may extract the identities of people tagged in a digital image, the text of a post, whether a user indicated interest or disinterest in certain content, and the identities of other people that may have commented or otherwise indicated interest or disinterest in the same content on a social media product. If the data extractor 304 already has extracted content from the subject data and that data has not changed since that content was extracted, the data extractor 304 may only extract the information required to determine that content already has been extracted from the subject data, such as versioning information and/or the time and date the data was created or edited. Thus, if a user accesses existing data at step 302 without modifying that data, at least some previously extracted content may be utilized to assign attributes to that data at step 308 so that the same content does not need to be extracted again at step 304. [0039 - the content extractor [] may extract certain contract language (e.g., “this Agreement is entered into,” “in consideration of the Agreement,” etc.) from an electronic document, and the predefined ontologies and taxonomies 206 may define that document as a particular type of contract]The value of data may be determined from the information extracted by the content extractor 210, the data backup snapshots 204, and/or the predefined ontologies and taxonomies 206. That value may comprise the subjective, monetary value of the data and/or the objective, intangible value of the data to the entity that generated it. For example, the content extractor 210 may extract certain contract language (e.g., “this Agreement is entered into,” “in consideration of the Agreement,” etc.) from an electronic document, and the predefined ontologies and taxonomies 206 may define that document as a particular type of contract, from both of which the attribute analyzer 214 may determine that the subject document has a certain amount of intangible value to the entity that generated it. Similarly, the content extractor 210 may extract a file type and/or file description from a particular data (e.g., a purchased music file, a purchased software application, etc.), and the predefined ontologies and taxonomies 206 may define a particular monetary value for the corresponding data, from both of which the attribute analyzer 214 may determine that the subject data has a certain amount of monetary value. Or the attribute analyzer 214 may determine the value of data utilizing the data backup snapshots 204 to measure the amount that the subject data has been used, wherein a greater amount of use by different users reflects a greater amount of intangible value. [0033 - attribute analyzer 214 may utilize pattern-matching functionality to identify duplicate data at the potential locations identified by the context analyzer 212 and data association functionality to determine that certain data has similar attributes to other data]The attribute analyzer 214 is configured to determine the attributes of data utilizing the data backup snapshots 204, the predefined ontologies and taxonomies 206, the information extracted by the content extractor 210, and the context of the data determined by the context analyzer 212. For example, the attribute analyzer 214 may utilize the data backup snapshots 204 to determine whether certain data is seldom or never used and/or whether certain data has been replaced by a more recent version. The attribute analyzer 214 also may utilize natural language processing (NLP) to analyze the content of certain data and determine the types, properties, and relationships of that data based on the information extracted by the content extractor 210 and/or the predefined ontologies and taxonomies 206. Further, the attribute analyzer 214 may utilize pattern-matching functionality to identify duplicate data at the potential locations identified by the context analyzer 212 and data association functionality to determine that certain data has similar attributes to other data based on the relationships between those data identified by the context analyzer 212.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 to include the features as taught by Kleinschnitz, JR. et al. 2016/0188700. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
18/769,395 – Claim 17. (New) The information processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the first amendment candidate of the input contract document is a revied version of the extracted past contract document.
Claim 17, has similar limitations as of Claim 9, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim 9.
Claims 12, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Gupta et al. 2014/0033068; in view of Hurd et al. 2004/0148285; in view of Fukuda et al. 2013/0198201; in further view of Li et al. 2013/0191405.
18/769,395 – Claim 12. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, further comprising: Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 may not expressly disclose the following features, however, Li et al. 2013/0191405 teaches extracting a related contract document including the extracted the attribute information from a database (Li et al. 2013/0191405 [0030 - metadata information of the source document may be extracted (metadata interpreted as attribute information)] As shown in FIG. 2, at block 202 metadata information of the source document may be extracted. According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the metadata information may include one or more of the following information: a document subject, a document size, a document building time, a document modification time, a document sending time, and a document receiving time. The specified metadata information may be extracted from the electronic document accordingly to any generally known manner, and will, therefore, not be described here.);and presenting the related contract document linked to the input contract document as a link contract document candidate (Li et al. 2013/0191405 [0009 - be possible to directly and automatically locate a target document having the sending-receiving relation with a source document based on a link containing metadata information to the source document] According to a method and/or a system of the present disclosure, it may be possible to directly and automatically locate a target document having the sending-receiving relation with a source document based on a link containing metadata information to the source document without manually analyzing and extracting the related information on the source document or changing the existing access right to the source document and the target document.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 to include the features as taught by Li et al. 2013/0191405. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 20, has similar limitations as of Claim 12, therefore it is REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim 12.
18/769,395 – Claim 19. (Previously Presented) The information processing apparatus according to claim 14, Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 may not expressly disclose the following features, however, Li et al. 2013/0191405 teaches wherein the processor is configured to extract an attribute information from the input contract document (Li et al. 2013/0191405 [0030 - metadata information of the source document may be extracted (metadata interpreted as attribute information)] As shown in FIG. 2, at block 202 metadata information of the source document may be extracted. According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the metadata information may include one or more of the following information: a document subject, a document size, a document building time, a document modification time, a document sending time, and a document receiving time. The specified metadata information may be extracted from the electronic document accordingly to any generally known manner, and will, therefore, not be described here.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gupta et al. 2014/0033068 to include the features as taught by Li et al. 2013/0191405. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Conclusion
PERTINENT PRIOR ART – Patent Literature
The prior-art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Frank et al. 2006/0085220 [0353 - button link… GUI component displayed to the user…]
Verreaux 2010/0332480 [0007] To address this and/or other needs, the present inventors have devised systems and methods for distributing loading of information retrieval systems. More specifically, in one form, the invention comprises an online information retrieval system having a queue for storing load requests and a set of two or more load managers for retrieving data from the queue and indexing documents based on the request retrieved from the queue. Each load manager resides in a different geographical location. Further, there is a set of candidate documents wherein each candidate document comprises a unique identifier and a version indicator. The unique identifier for each candidate document is identical and the version indicator is associated with a determination of which document within the set of candidate documents shall ultimately be communicated to a user.
Maksimov 2017/0249290 [0102] In some embodiments, the synchronization document database 214 may store one or more synchronization documents resulting from the creation of a document and/or edits made to a previously existing document by one or more users. The one or more synchronization documents may include a subset of the document to which it relates. In some embodiments, the synchronization document database 214 aims at storing a subset of revisions records of a document. In some embodiments, the subset of revision records may be a portion of the document. In some other embodiments, the subset of revision records may be a series of entries allowing reconstituting a version of the document when combined with a previous version of the document. As a person skilled in the art of the present technology may appreciate, the subset of revision records may allow reconstituting a most recent version of a document on an electronic device which has access, in its local memory, to a previous version of the document without requiring the document server 210 to transmit the most recent version of the document in its entirety to the electronic device. In such embodiments, transmitting the subset of revision records may be sufficient. As a result, in some embodiments, a memory hosting the synchronization document database 214 may be selected based on its ability to ensure fast access and therefore fast transmission from the document server 210 to one or more of the electronic devices 232, 234, 236 without necessitating long-term storage capacity. In some embodiments, the memory may be a random access memory similar to the random access memory 130 depicted at FIG. 1. Even though reference is made to the synchronization document database “214”, the term “database” should not be construed as being limitative. To the contrary, the term “database” should be construed as encompassing, but without being limitative, any repository and/or storage wherein a synchronization document may be stored, independently of a specific data structure. Other variations may also become apparent to the person skilled in the art of the present technology without departing from the scope of the present technology.
Greenspan et al. 2015/0199411 [0010] Various embodiments include a method of managing a document, the method comprising: receiving a first series of modifications to the document; storing the first series of modifications in a revision history; storing a first historical version of the document, the first historical version being a result of the first series of modifications; receiving a second series of modifications to the document; storing the second series of modifications in the revision history; receiving a version marker designated by a user; navigating the second series of revisions to the version marker from the first historical version or the second historical version; and providing a version of the document representative of the navigated revisions. [0046] Versions of a document are optionally compared using "redline" or similar markings. For example, the differences between two versions may be presented to a user as a single document including underlined additions and deletions struck out. The comparison may be produced by comparing a historical version with another version directly. Alternatively, the comparison may be produced by navigating the revision history from one version to the other and applying modifications in the navigated history with marking (track changes) on. In this case, information included in the revision history may be included in the comparison. For example, the identity of users who made modifications, modification dates, a modification order, or the like, may be included in the comparison provided to a user. This type of information is not available when two static documents are compared. Version Management Logic 170 is optionally configured to filter modifications shown in a comparison based on, for example, the identity of a user. As such, modifications made by just one or more specific user may be marked while other modifications are unmarked. Comparisons may be made forward or backward in time.
Watkins et al. 2017/0154391 [0037 - comparing the material terms in the subcontract to the standard or core material terms in similar contracts (i.e., contracts for the same product or service category)] [0016 - receive one or more of second inputs that assess one or more of the plurality of material terms associated with a sub-contract (i.e., an amendment to the contract, sub-agreement, addendum, codicil or the like) of the contract] [0055]
PERTINENT PRIOR ART – Non-Patent Literature (NPL)
The NPL prior-art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Methods For Retrieving Alternative Contract Language Using A Prototype, Author: Silviu Pitis, ICAIL '17: Proceedings of the 16th edition of the International Conference on Articial Intelligence and Law, Pages 179 – 187, Published: 12 June 2017, https://doi.org/10.1145/3086512.3086530.
Algorithms For The Determination Of Document Authentication Time And The Recommendation Of Document Modification, Authors: Jiang-Liang Hou, Chih-Hao HuangAuthors Info & Claims, Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal, Volume 36, Issue 3, Pages 5992 – 6009, Published: 01 April 2009, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.06.1
Examiner’s Response to Arguments
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn. See notes above for additional reasoning and rationale for dropping prior-art rejection including Applicant’s amendments and arguments and unique combination of features and elements not taught by the prior-art without hindsight reasoning.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn. See notes above for additional reasoning and rationale for dropping 35 USC 101 rejection including Applicant’s amendments, arguments, lack of abstract idea, and practical integration.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Regarding Claims 1-10 and 12-20, on page(s) 7-9 of Applicant’s Remarks (dated 01/08/2026), Applicants traverse the 35 USC §101 rejections arguing the following: the claims are not abstract and that the ordered combination of limitations amounts to “significantly more” that any abstract idea. With respect, the Office disagrees, and the claims remain rejected as follows.
Regarding independent method claim 1, the claim does not positively recite any computer, processor, or other structural elements for performing the claimed steps. Applicant claims that when the combination of limitations are considered together as an ordered combination that they are directed to a specific computer-implemented method for processing contract documents. Remarks pgs. 7-8. That argument is refuted by the Office. There is nothing about the combination of limitations that render the combination as only being able to be performed by a computer. Again, the method claim does not positively claim any computer or processor and all of the steps are steps that could be performed by a human. See Rejection above for further evidence.
Consequently, the Office must assume and interpret the claims as capable of being performed mentally and/or manually via pen and paper. Furthermore, this assumption is not without merit as the claimed invention is directed to contract documents and presenting and tracking amendments to contract documents. Such features have long been performed manually on paper using pen to annotate and track amendments and provisions. Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims (apparatus and computer readable claims) recite additional functional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: a communication interface for presenting or communicating information. Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extrasolution activity. (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle in to a patentable process.”).
The aforementioned claims (apparatus and computer readable claims) also recite additional technical elements including: a processor and/or a storage medium to execute the apparatus, a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” for storing executable instructions, a “communication interface” for communicating and transmitting data. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements listed above that relate to computing components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as communicating, receiving, processing, analyzing, and outputting/displaying data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. There is no technological problem that the claimed invention solves. Rather, the computer system is invoked merely as a tool. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field, apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease, apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s), and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Regarding Enfish, Applicant’s claimed invention and the claim set from Enfish are distinguished. The invention in Enfish had to do with a self-referential table. The invention was considered to be wholly new way of organizing data. The difference from this and many of the other data organizing cases that have been found abstract, is that Enfish is not using conventional and well-known methods of organizing the data (such as Microsoft Access or Oracle), it is essentially a new way of performing the database management system itself. Whereas most data organizing cases that have been found to be abstract are simply using the known database management systems but organizing particular or proprietary data. With respect to Applicant’s invention, Applicant is not claiming a new way to receive user information, a new way for the computer to process the determination calculations, or a new way to transmit data to users. Conversely, Applicant is merely claiming known and conventional means of processing, tracking, and presenting amendments to contract documents.
Regarding McRO, Applicant attempts to analogize the claims in the McRO decision to the claims of the present application. However, unlike the claims in McRO, the claims of the present invention do not recite an improvement to technology. Rather, to the extent method claim 1 may be considered to improve something, the improvement is to the mental processes and methods of organizing human activity (abstract ideas) used in processing amendments to contract documents. An improvement to an abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible. See SAP Am, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[T]he claims here are legally equivalent to claims simply to the asserted advance in the realm of abstract ideas... Under the principles developed in interpreting § 101, patent law does not protect such claims, without more, no matter how groundbreaking the advance."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea."). Moreover, claim 1 recites a method of organizing human activity as well as multiple mental processes. Such an agglomeration of multiple abstract ideas does not amount to an improvement to technology. See ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("As we have said before, '[a]dding one abstract idea... to another abstract idea... does not render the claim non-abstract.'")). Accordingly, Applicant's argument based on McRO is not persuasive.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T. SITTNER whose telephone number is (571) 270-7137 and email: matthew.sittner@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm (Mountain Time Zone).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah M. Monfeldt can be reached on (571) 270-1833.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW T SITTNER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629b
Claims 1, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Key et al. 2022/0148112; in view of Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990; in further view of Dorai et al. 2018/0314680; in view of Fay et al. 2017/0228393.
18/769,395 – Claim 1. (Currently Amended) Key et al. 2022/0148112 teaches A method for processing documents comprising: accepting an input contract document (Key et al. 2022/0148112 [0018 - Files 130 can be received from object with properties files 118 and are associated with a particular contract or agreement from contract repository] In certain implementations, the device 124 includes a content viewer 128 can be configured read files 130. Files 130 can be received from object with properties files 118 and are associated with a particular contract or agreement from contract repository 122. In certain implementations, files 130 are configured as a set of files which may be linked that can include content files such as script files, property files, action logs, and a digital certificate. The content viewer 128 can be configured to read such files, and in certain implementations configured to gather statistics. In certain implementations, opening the bundled set of files can initiate a timestamp, logs and reports by the content viewer 128. The timestamp, logs and reports will be generated, saved and re-uploaded upon file closure. In certain implementations, the content viewer 128 can be configured to play an associated or linked content file to files 130, such as a video. For example, when negotiating as to a script or screenplay, a video link to a video file 132 may be available that includes a sales pitch or related scene(s) to the script or screenplay.); extracting attribute information from the input contract document; presenting a plurality of first amendment candidates of the input contract document (Key et al. 2022/0148112 [0006 - Initial terms to the contract can be initiated and negotiated, which can involve several iterations which are timestamped. Associated content with the contract can be created in parallel, where versions of the contract can be memorialized by a timestamp…] A system, method, and computer-readable medium are disclosed for improved online contract negotiations. A transactional or negotiation phase can be initiated by a party with another party. Initial terms to the contract can be initiated and negotiated, which can involve several iterations which are timestamped. Associated content with the contract can be created in parallel, where versions of the contract can be memorialized by a timestamp. The final version of the contract along with the associated content can be encrypted, such as by a block chain.) based on one or more versions of past contract documents that contain contents similar to the attribute information of the input contract document from past contract documents (Key et al. 2022/0148112 [0006 - where versions of the contract can be memorialized by a timestamp] A system, method, and computer-readable medium are disclosed for improved online contract negotiations. A transactional or negotiation phase can be initiated by a party with another party. Initial terms to the contract can be initiated and negotiated, which can involve several iterations which are timestamped. Associated content with the contract can be created in parallel, where versions of the contract can be memorialized by a timestamp. The final version of the contract along with the associated content can be encrypted, such as by a block chain.);
Key et al. 2022/0148112 may not expressly disclose the following, however, Dorai et al. 2018/0314680 teaches receiving an input of selection of a first amendment candidate from the plurality of first amendment candidates (Dorai et al. 2018/0314680 [0030] Using the information about end user applications and end users currently accessing an electronic document, the collaboration system can implement any of several different techniques for coordinating access to the electronic document to ensure consistency of the electronic document. For example, the collaboration system can prevent one end user application from causing modifications to be written to a data file for an electronic document while another the data file is open for writing by another end user application. As another example, the collaboration system can interactively merge changes to the electronic document as such changes are being made collaboratively through multiple end user applications. In such a case, as an example, the collaboration system can merge changes received from end user computers in memory local to the collaboration system, and then can transmit a modified version of the electronic document to each end user computer with an application currently accessing the document. [0056 - receives user inputs through one or more input devices] In FIG. 3, an example graphical user interface for an end user application is shown. FIG. 3 illustrates several example features of a graphical user interface which can be used individually or in combination. In this example graphical user interface, a document pane 300 is a primary display area in which the electronic document is presented on a display. The end user computer receives user inputs through one or more input devices, and can associate such inputs with operations with respect to the electronic document in document pane 300, or with respect to other graphical elements in the graphical user interface. The end user computer processes some user inputs to effect modifications to the structure and/or content of the electronic document currently being accessed in the document pane 300. Within the document pane, content that has been changed since the last access by the end user, can be displayed with special formatting such as highlighting or other emphasis. For the purposes of this illustration in FIG. 3, the changed text indicated at 312 is underlined. [0057] The graphical user interface for the end user application can include a scroll bar 302 which represents the length of the document. In response to an input associated with end points 304, 306 of the scroll bar, the content of the document displayed in the document pane can be scrolled. In response to an input associated with a position within the scroll bar, the content of the document displayed in the document pane can be updated to correspond to the selected position. A position indicator 308 along the scroll bar indicates the current position of the displayed content in the document pane 300 with respect to the whole document. Change indicators 310 indicate positions in the document at which a change has been identified. Thus, in response to a user input selecting a change indicator 310 in the scroll bar, the document pane 300 can be updated to show the content of the document corresponding to the position of the selected change indicator 310.); setting the selected first candidate into the input contract document as a provision after modification (Dorai et al. 2018/0314680 [0008] The server computer also stores information about changes made to an electronic document. For example, this information can include the activity data describing actions taken by users with respect to the electronic document. As another example, this information can include a revision history indicating changes made over time to the electronic document. As another example, this information can include different versions of the electronic document stored over time. As another example, this information can include associating identifiers with structure and/or content of the electronic document, and other data indicating a time at which the structure and/or content was last stored, or an identifier of a save operation that last changed the structure and/or content. [0082] As another example, the indication of content of the electronic document which the end user has accessed can be a time stamp of the last access. The changes can be determined by comparing content of a most up to date version of the electronic document with content of a version of the electronic document immediately preceding or identical to the time stamp stored for this end user. The end user application can receive the version of the electronic document immediately preceding or identical to the time stamp stored for this end user, and the changes to be applied to that version. Similarly, the changes can be determined by accessing all revisions from a revision history which occur after the time stamp for the given user. The end user application can receive the version of the electronic document immediately preceding or identical to the time stamp stored for this end user, and the set of revisions selected from the revision history occurring after that time stamp.); presenting together with the first amendment candidate, a comment associated with a past contract document from which the first amendment candidate is derived (Dorai et al. 2018/0314680 [0003 – presenting and modifying documents… comments in a document…][0032; 0044; 0045; 0047; 0048 – comment(s) and commenting]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Key et al. 2022/0148112 to include the features as taught by Dorai et al. 2018/0314680. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Key et al. 2022/0148112 may not expressly disclose the “contain contents similar” and the “extracting attribute information from the input contract document” features, however, Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990 teaches (Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990 [0024 - by comparing the collected input, the contract defining module 101 determines whether at least one contract exists in the database, that includes identical/similar (or near similar) terms and conditions] The contract defining module 101 is configured to define a contract, wherein the contract is defined from scratch or by taking and improving any existing contract. The contract defining module 101 collects terms and conditions to be included in a contract, as input. Further, by comparing the collected input, the contract defining module 101 determines whether at least one contract exists in the database, that includes identical/similar (or near similar) terms and conditions. If the contract defining module 101 is unable to find a match in the database, then a fresh template is used to define the contract from the scratch. [0022 - extracts terms and conditions in the contract, in light of various pre-defined criteria, identifies and establishes relationships between the extracted terms and conditions, and displays the extracted contents] While performing refactoring of the contract, the refactoring module 105 extracts terms and conditions in the contract, in light of various pre-defined criteria, identifies and establishes relationships between the extracted terms and conditions, and displays the extracted contents, along with the established relationship(s), to the user as a summarized version of the original contract, which in turn helps the user easily understand contents of the contract.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Key et al. 2022/0148112 to include the features as taught by Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Key et al. 2022/0148112 may not expressly disclose the “comments associated with a contract document” features, however, Fay et al. 2017/0228393 teaches (Fay et al. 2017/0228393 [0022 - regulates access to various aspects of a document's history besides its revision history, including its incorporation in other documents over time; comments on or revisions of it over time; its publication history; etc.] In some embodiments, the facility regulates access to various aspects of a document's history besides its revision history, including its incorporation in other documents over time; comments on or revisions of it over time; its publication history; etc.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Key et al. 2022/0148112 to include the features as taught by Fay et al. 2017/0228393. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claims 13 and 14, have similar limitations as of Claim 1, therefore these claims are REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim 1.
Claims 1, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Nixon et al. 2015/0363397; in view of Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990; in further view of Dorai et al. 2018/0314680; in view of Fay et al. 2017/0228393.
18/769,395 – Claim 1. (Currently Amended) Nixon et al. 2015/0363397 teaches A method for processing documents comprising: accepting an input contract document (Nixon et al. 2015/0363397 [0009 - receiving an electronic version of the candidate document from the electronic device…] In one embodiment, the method further includes, in response to the step of transmitting the recommendation and wherein the recommendation is a do not obtain recommendation, reviewing the set of data items based upon a set of additional information and determining whether to generate a modified recommendation. If a modified recommendation is generated, the method further includes storing the modified recommendation in the first memory, generating a modified signal based upon the modified recommendation and transmitting the modified signal to the electronic device. According to one embodiment, the step of reviewing is ongoing and is triggered by at least one of an event and an end of a time period since the last time the step of reviewing was performed. In one embodiment, the method further includes, in response to the step of transmitting the modified signal and wherein the modified recommendation is an obtain recommendation, receiving an electronic version of the candidate document from the electronic device and storing the electronic version in the second memory.); extracting attribute information from the input contract document; presenting a plurality of first amendment candidates of the input contract document (Nixon et al. 2015/0363397 [0039 - an overall score for the candidate document and determines whether the candidate document should be…] In step 216, a recommendation is then generated by the recommendation module 122 to obtain or not obtain the candidate document. According to one embodiment, the recommendation module 122 receives an overall score for the candidate document and determines whether the candidate document should be presently obtained or not obtained by the system 100. The recommendation module 122 makes its determination to obtain or not obtain the candidate document based on whether the overall score of the document is greater than a threshold value. In another embodiment, the recommendation module 122 makes its determination based on the overall outcome of a logic model. According to another embodiment, at step 216, the recommendation module 122 first makes a determination as to whether that is has scores for sufficient number data items to make a recommendation and if not, generates a recommendation requesting additional data items.) based on one or more versions of past contract documents that contain contents similar to the attribute information of the input contract document from past contract documents (Nixon et al. 2015/0363397 [0008 - receiving an electronic version of the candidate document] According to one embodiment, the method further includes, in response to the step of transmitting the signal and wherein the recommendation is an obtain recommendation, receiving an electronic version of the candidate document from the electronic device and storing the electronic version in a second memory. [0027 - the on-boarded document database 134 maintains the electronic versions of the on-boarded documents, i.e. candidate documents that have been uploaded, or on-boarded, from the access device 160. Examples of on-boarded documents include, but are not limited to, court documents…] In one embodiment, as shown in the FIG. 1 example, the data store 130 includes a candidate data item database 132, an on-boarded document database 134 and the set of predefined scoring patterns 136. According to one embodiment, the on-boarded document database 134 maintains the electronic versions of the on-boarded documents, i.e. candidate documents that have been uploaded, or on-boarded, from the access device 160. Examples of on-boarded documents include, but are not limited to, court documents, such as judicial decisions, orders and opinions, complaints, answers, briefs, legal memorandum, expert reports, deposition transcripts, trial transcripts, hearing transcripts and party contentions, as well as state and federal statutes, administrative codes, newspaper and magazine articles, public records, law journals, law reviews, treatises and legal forms.);
Nixon et al. 2015/0363397 may not expressly disclose the following, however, Dorai et al. 2018/0314680 teaches receiving an input of selection of a first amendment candidate from the plurality of first amendment candidates (Dorai et al. 2018/0314680 [0030] Using the information about end user applications and end users currently accessing an electronic document, the collaboration system can implement any of several different techniques for coordinating access to the electronic document to ensure consistency of the electronic document. For example, the collaboration system can prevent one end user application from causing modifications to be written to a data file for an electronic document while another the data file is open for writing by another end user application. As another example, the collaboration system can interactively merge changes to the electronic document as such changes are being made collaboratively through multiple end user applications. In such a case, as an example, the collaboration system can merge changes received from end user computers in memory local to the collaboration system, and then can transmit a modified version of the electronic document to each end user computer with an application currently accessing the document. [0056 - receives user inputs through one or more input devices] In FIG. 3, an example graphical user interface for an end user application is shown. FIG. 3 illustrates several example features of a graphical user interface which can be used individually or in combination. In this example graphical user interface, a document pane 300 is a primary display area in which the electronic document is presented on a display. The end user computer receives user inputs through one or more input devices, and can associate such inputs with operations with respect to the electronic document in document pane 300, or with respect to other graphical elements in the graphical user interface. The end user computer processes some user inputs to effect modifications to the structure and/or content of the electronic document currently being accessed in the document pane 300. Within the document pane, content that has been changed since the last access by the end user, can be displayed with special formatting such as highlighting or other emphasis. For the purposes of this illustration in FIG. 3, the changed text indicated at 312 is underlined. [0057] The graphical user interface for the end user application can include a scroll bar 302 which represents the length of the document. In response to an input associated with end points 304, 306 of the scroll bar, the content of the document displayed in the document pane can be scrolled. In response to an input associated with a position within the scroll bar, the content of the document displayed in the document pane can be updated to correspond to the selected position. A position indicator 308 along the scroll bar indicates the current position of the displayed content in the document pane 300 with respect to the whole document. Change indicators 310 indicate positions in the document at which a change has been identified. Thus, in response to a user input selecting a change indicator 310 in the scroll bar, the document pane 300 can be updated to show the content of the document corresponding to the position of the selected change indicator 310.); setting the selected first candidate into the input contract document as a provision after modification (Dorai et al. 2018/0314680 [0008] The server computer also stores information about changes made to an electronic document. For example, this information can include the activity data describing actions taken by users with respect to the electronic document. As another example, this information can include a revision history indicating changes made over time to the electronic document. As another example, this information can include different versions of the electronic document stored over time. As another example, this information can include associating identifiers with structure and/or content of the electronic document, and other data indicating a time at which the structure and/or content was last stored, or an identifier of a save operation that last changed the structure and/or content. [0082] As another example, the indication of content of the electronic document which the end user has accessed can be a time stamp of the last access. The changes can be determined by comparing content of a most up to date version of the electronic document with content of a version of the electronic document immediately preceding or identical to the time stamp stored for this end user. The end user application can receive the version of the electronic document immediately preceding or identical to the time stamp stored for this end user, and the changes to be applied to that version. Similarly, the changes can be determined by accessing all revisions from a revision history which occur after the time stamp for the given user. The end user application can receive the version of the electronic document immediately preceding or identical to the time stamp stored for this end user, and the set of revisions selected from the revision history occurring after that time stamp.); and presenting together with the first amendment candidate, a comment associated with a past contract document from which the first amendment candidate is derived (Dorai et al. 2018/0314680 [0056 - content that has been changed since the last access by the end user, can be displayed with special formatting such as highlighting or other emphasis] In FIG. 3, an example graphical user interface for an end user application is shown. FIG. 3 illustrates several example features of a graphical user interface which can be used individually or in combination. In this example graphical user interface, a document pane 300 is a primary display area in which the electronic document is presented on a display. The end user computer receives user inputs through one or more input devices, and can associate such inputs with operations with respect to the electronic document in document pane 300, or with respect to other graphical elements in the graphical user interface. The end user computer processes some user inputs to effect modifications to the structure and/or content of the electronic document currently being accessed in the document pane 300. Within the document pane, content that has been changed since the last access by the end user, can be displayed with special formatting such as highlighting or other emphasis. For the purposes of this illustration in FIG. 3, the changed text indicated at 312 is underlined.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nixon et al. 2015/0363397 to include the features as taught by Dorai et al. 2018/0314680. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Nixon et al. 2015/0363397 may not expressly disclose the “contain contents similar” features, however, Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990 teaches (Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990 [0024 - by comparing the collected input, the contract defining module 101 determines whether at least one contract exists in the database, that includes identical/similar (or near similar) terms and conditions] The contract defining module 101 is configured to define a contract, wherein the contract is defined from scratch or by taking and improving any existing contract. The contract defining module 101 collects terms and conditions to be included in a contract, as input. Further, by comparing the collected input, the contract defining module 101 determines whether at least one contract exists in the database, that includes identical/similar (or near similar) terms and conditions. If the contract defining module 101 is unable to find a match in the database, then a fresh template is used to define the contract from the scratch.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nixon et al. 2015/0363397 to include the features as taught by Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claims 13 and 14, have similar limitations as of Claim 1, therefore these claims are REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim 1.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Dimerman 2019/0138571; in view of Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990; in further view of Dorai et al. 2018/0314680; in view of Fay et al. 2017/0228393.
18/769,395 – Claim 1. (Currently Amended) Dimerman 2019/0138571 teaches A method for processing documents comprising: accepting an input contract document (Dimerman 2019/0138571 [0034] The database interface 104 is coupled to a contract metadata repository 106 and a contract repository 108. In this context, “database” may refer to a relational database, flat file, table, spreadsheet, or any other form of collective data storage that is capable of programmatic interrogation, such as using a query or API call, to obtain a result set of one or more records or datasets. [0051] In step 502, digital data is stored representing a contract set of two or more contract documents. The two or more contract documents may comprise a template document and one or more contract document versions based on the template document. For example, the digital data representing contract documents may be stored in the contract repository 108 by the server 102. The server 102 may receive digital contract data from any external source via the network 116 and store the digital data in the contract repository 108. Digital contract data may also be generated internally by the server 102 and stored, by the server 102, in the contract repository 108.); extracting attribute information from the input contract document; presenting a plurality of first amendment candidates of the input contract document (Dimerman 2019/0138571 [0079] In another embodiment, a first contract set is stored, the first contract set comprising two or more contract documents, the two or more contract documents comprising a template document and one or more contract document versions based on the template document. A second contract set is stored, the second contract set comprising two or more contract documents, the two or more contract documents comprising the template document and one or more contract document versions based on the template document. Digital contract metadata is stored, the digital contract metadata including data identifying one or more data fields in each contract document of the first and second contract sets, data specifying the data type of the one or more data fields in each contract document of the first and second contract sets, and weights assigned to each data type. A time curve graph is generated and displayed based on the contract set and contract metadata, the time curve graph graphically indicating similarities between contract documents in the first contract set, similarities between contract documents in the second contract set, and a temporal ordering of contract documents in each contract set of the first and second contract sets. It is determined whether the template document of the contract set needs to be modified by performing a geometric analysis of the time curve graph to identify a geometric trend between the first and second contract sets that indicate that the template document should be modified. In response to identifying a directional trend between the first and second contract sets that indicate that the template document should be modified, a notification indicating that the template document should be modified is generated and displayed at a computer associated with the contract administrator.) based on one or more versions of past contract documents (Dimerman 2019/0138571 [0001] The present disclosure generally relates to the technical field of statistical analysis of data using digital computers. The disclosure relates more specifically to the technical field of efficient algorithms for computer systems that are programmed to automatically generate a risk analysis of a set of contract documents based on identifying patterns of geometric shapes in a time curve graph of contract history and divergence. [0035] In an embodiment, contract repository 108 stores digital data representing contract documents. A contract document is an electronic document that specifies terms of a contractual agreement. A contract document may exist within a contract set, which may include one or more contract documents. A contract set may include a template document, which may be the first version of a series of contract document versions. A contract document version may be a revised document version of a template document.) that contain contents similar to the attribute information of the input contract document from past contract documents (Dimerman 2019/0138571 [0059 - timeline can be folded to generate a time curve that graphically indicates how similar two contract documents are to each other] The timeline can be folded to generate a time curve that graphically indicates how similar two contract documents are to each other. FIG. 3B shows a folded timeline, referred to as a time curve, that provides a visual indication of how similar two contract documents are to one another 306 while also providing an indication of temporal ordering of the contract documents. [0060 - spatial proximity between contract document versions provides a metric of similarly 306, such as how similar two contract versions are to each other] For example, the measure of each curve between contract versions provides a metric of time difference 304, such as the amount of time between the creation of two contract document versions. The spatial proximity between contract document versions provides a metric of similarly 306, such as how similar two contract versions are to each other.);
Dimerman 2019/0138571 may not expressly disclose the following, however, Dorai et al. 2018/0314680 teaches receiving an input of selection of a first amendment candidate from the plurality of first amendment candidates (Dorai et al. 2018/0314680 [0030] Using the information about end user applications and end users currently accessing an electronic document, the collaboration system can implement any of several different techniques for coordinating access to the electronic document to ensure consistency of the electronic document. For example, the collaboration system can prevent one end user application from causing modifications to be written to a data file for an electronic document while another the data file is open for writing by another end user application. As another example, the collaboration system can interactively merge changes to the electronic document as such changes are being made collaboratively through multiple end user applications. In such a case, as an example, the collaboration system can merge changes received from end user computers in memory local to the collaboration system, and then can transmit a modified version of the electronic document to each end user computer with an application currently accessing the document. [0056 - receives user inputs through one or more input devices] In FIG. 3, an example graphical user interface for an end user application is shown. FIG. 3 illustrates several example features of a graphical user interface which can be used individually or in combination. In this example graphical user interface, a document pane 300 is a primary display area in which the electronic document is presented on a display. The end user computer receives user inputs through one or more input devices, and can associate such inputs with operations with respect to the electronic document in document pane 300, or with respect to other graphical elements in the graphical user interface. The end user computer processes some user inputs to effect modifications to the structure and/or content of the electronic document currently being accessed in the document pane 300. Within the document pane, content that has been changed since the last access by the end user, can be displayed with special formatting such as highlighting or other emphasis. For the purposes of this illustration in FIG. 3, the changed text indicated at 312 is underlined. [0057] The graphical user interface for the end user application can include a scroll bar 302 which represents the length of the document. In response to an input associated with end points 304, 306 of the scroll bar, the content of the document displayed in the document pane can be scrolled. In response to an input associated with a position within the scroll bar, the content of the document displayed in the document pane can be updated to correspond to the selected position. A position indicator 308 along the scroll bar indicates the current position of the displayed content in the document pane 300 with respect to the whole document. Change indicators 310 indicate positions in the document at which a change has been identified. Thus, in response to a user input selecting a change indicator 310 in the scroll bar, the document pane 300 can be updated to show the content of the document corresponding to the position of the selected change indicator 310.); setting the selected first candidate into the input contract document as a provision after modification (Dorai et al. 2018/0314680 [0008] The server computer also stores information about changes made to an electronic document. For example, this information can include the activity data describing actions taken by users with respect to the electronic document. As another example, this information can include a revision history indicating changes made over time to the electronic document. As another example, this information can include different versions of the electronic document stored over time. As another example, this information can include associating identifiers with structure and/or content of the electronic document, and other data indicating a time at which the structure and/or content was last stored, or an identifier of a save operation that last changed the structure and/or content. [0082] As another example, the indication of content of the electronic document which the end user has accessed can be a time stamp of the last access. The changes can be determined by comparing content of a most up to date version of the electronic document with content of a version of the electronic document immediately preceding or identical to the time stamp stored for this end user. The end user application can receive the version of the electronic document immediately preceding or identical to the time stamp stored for this end user, and the changes to be applied to that version. Similarly, the changes can be determined by accessing all revisions from a revision history which occur after the time stamp for the given user. The end user application can receive the version of the electronic document immediately preceding or identical to the time stamp stored for this end user, and the set of revisions selected from the revision history occurring after that time stamp.); presenting together with the first amendment candidate, a comment associated with a past contract document from which the first amendment candidate is derived (Dorai et al. 2018/0314680 [0056 - content that has been changed since the last access by the end user, can be displayed with special formatting such as highlighting or other emphasis] In FIG. 3, an example graphical user interface for an end user application is shown. FIG. 3 illustrates several example features of a graphical user interface which can be used individually or in combination. In this example graphical user interface, a document pane 300 is a primary display area in which the electronic document is presented on a display. The end user computer receives user inputs through one or more input devices, and can associate such inputs with operations with respect to the electronic document in document pane 300, or with respect to other graphical elements in the graphical user interface. The end user computer processes some user inputs to effect modifications to the structure and/or content of the electronic document currently being accessed in the document pane 300. Within the document pane, content that has been changed since the last access by the end user, can be displayed with special formatting such as highlighting or other emphasis. For the purposes of this illustration in FIG. 3, the changed text indicated at 312 is underlined.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Dimerman 2019/0138571 to include the features as taught by Dorai et al. 2018/0314680. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Dimerman 2019/0138571 may not expressly disclose the “contain contents similar” features, however, Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990 teaches (Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990 [0024 - by comparing the collected input, the contract defining module 101 determines whether at least one contract exists in the database, that includes identical/similar (or near similar) terms and conditions] The contract defining module 101 is configured to define a contract, wherein the contract is defined from scratch or by taking and improving any existing contract. The contract defining module 101 collects terms and conditions to be included in a contract, as input. Further, by comparing the collected input, the contract defining module 101 determines whether at least one contract exists in the database, that includes identical/similar (or near similar) terms and conditions. If the contract defining module 101 is unable to find a match in the database, then a fresh template is used to define the contract from the scratch.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Dimerman 2019/0138571 to include the features as taught by Vidhani et al. 2021/0182990. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve document and information processing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
18/769,395 – Claim 13. (New) A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program including instructions that, when executed by a processor, causes an information processing apparatus connected to a document processing apparatus through a communication interface, to: accept an input contract document; and present a first amendment candidate of the input contract document based on one or more versions of a past contract documents that contain contents similar to the input contract document from a past contract documents.
18/769,395 – Claim 14. (New) An information processing apparatus comprising: a communication device configured to communicate with a document processing apparatus through a communication interface; and a processor configured to accept an input contract document, and cause the document processing apparatus to present a first amendment candidate of the input contract document based on one or more versions of past contract documents that contain contents similar to the input contract document from past contract documents.
Claims 13 and 14, have similar limitations as of Claim 1, therefore these claims are REJECTED under the same rationale as Claim 1.