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 .
DETAILED ACTION
A filing date of 07/23/2024 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1
Line 4; remove comma after “non-transitory”
Line 5; change “causing” to --cause--.
Claim 2
Line 15; insert --the-- before “determining”.
Claims 3 – 4
These claims are dependent claims of claim 2; therefore, they inherit issues of claim 2.
Claim 5
Line 11; insert --the-- before “determining”.
Claim 6
Line 7; insert --the-- before “determining”.
Claim 7
Line 9; insert --the-- before “determining”.
Claim 8
Line 9; insert --the-- before “determining”.
Claims 9 – 12
These claims are dependent claims of claim 2 either directly or indirectly; therefore, they inherit issues of claim 2.
Claim 13
Line 1; Remove comma after “non-transitory”.
Claim 14
Line 1; Remove comma after “non-transitory”.
Claim 15
Line 1; remove comma after “non-transitory”.
Line 5; insert --the-- before “modifying”
Claim 16
Line 1; Remove comma after “non-transitory”.
Line 12; insert --the-- before “determining”.
Claim 17
Line 1; Remove comma after “non-transitory”.
Line 8; insert --the-- before “determining”.
Claim 18
Line 1; Remove comma after “non-transitory”.
Line 10; insert --the-- before “determining”.
Claim 19
Line 1; Remove comma after “non-transitory”.
Claim 20
Line 1; Remove comma after “non-transitory”.
Line 2; insert --the-- before “determining”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 2
Step 1
The claim is statutory because it is directed to a method.
Step 2A, prong 1
The claim recites limitations
“identifying, within a document, a plurality of messages relating to the document;
determining, within a subset of the plurality of messages, one or more references to one or more portions of the document;
processing … the document and the subset of the plurality of messages to determine an antecedent to which each reference refers, wherein the co-referencing model is trained to predict antecedents based on references;
determining, based on predictions …, that both a first message and a second message of the subset of the plurality of messages refer to a particular antecedent;
determining a first meaning and a second meaning of the first message and the second message, respectively, relating to the particular antecedent;
determining that the first meaning and the second meaning are within a threshold similarity of each other; and
based on determining that the first meaning and the second meaning are within the threshold similarity of each other, modifying the document to remove the second message from the document.”
The steps of “identifying, within a document, a plurality of messages relating to the document; determining, within a subset of the plurality of messages, one or more references to one or more portions of the document” fall into category of Mental Processes as they rely on human observation and evaluation to identify references to portions of the document.
The steps of “processing … the document and the subset of the plurality of messages to determine an antecedent to which each reference refers, wherein the co-referencing model is trained to predict antecedents based on references; determining, based on predictions …, that both a first message and a second message of the subset of the plurality of messages refer to a particular antecedent; and determining a first meaning and a second meaning of the first message and the second message, respectively, relating to the particular antecedent” fall into category of Mental Processes as they rely on human observation and evaluation to identify antecedent that reference refers and identify meaning of messages.
The steps of “determining that the first meaning and the second meaning are within a threshold similarity of each other; and based on determining that the first meaning and the second meaning are within the threshold similarity of each other, modifying the document to remove the second message from the document” fall into category of Mental Processes as they rely on human observation and evaluation to determine the meanings of messages are within threshold similarity of each other to decide a removal of one of the messages.
Furthermore, the step “modifying the document to remove the second message” can be performed by human with an aid of paper and pen. Hence, this step is also directed to abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim further recites additional element “co-referencing model”. The additional element is recited as high level of generality and used as a tool to perform the limitations. Thus, the additional element is not indicative of an integration into a practical application.
Steps 2B
The claim as a whole is not amounted to significantly more than the judicial exception and is, therefore, directed to an abstract idea. In other words, claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Analysis of claims 3 – 12
Claim 3
The claim recites “the plurality of messages is received from a first plurality of users.”
The limitation indicates the source of the messages. Thus, the limitation is just an insignificant extra-solution activity and is not integrated into a practical application. So, it does not include any additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4
The claim recites “determining that the first message is generated by a first user of the first plurality of users and the second message is generated by a second user of the first plurality of users, wherein modifying the document to remove the second message from the document is performed further in response to determining that the first message is generated by the first user and the second message is generated by the second user.”
The limitation identifies, by human observation and evaluation, user who generates message(s) and modifies document based on the identification. Thus, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and it is not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. So, it does not include any additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5
The claim recites
“determining, based on the predictions generated by the co-referencing model, that a new antecedent to which a third message of the subset of the plurality of messages refers comprises a user of the first plurality of users, wherein the user did not generate the third message;
determining one or more other messages, of the plurality of messages, generated by the user;
determining a third meaning of the third message and one or more other meanings of the one or more other messages;
determining that the third meaning and at least one of the one or more other meanings are within the threshold similarity of each other; and
based on determining that the third meaning and at least one of the one or more other meanings are within the threshold similarity of each other, modifying the document to remove the third message from the document.”
The claim recites limitations similarly to claim 2. These limitations, as discussed in claim 2, cover performance of the limitation in the mind and are not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. So, it does not include any additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6
The claim recites
“determining, based on the predictions generated by the co-referencing model, that both a third message and a fourth message of the subset of the plurality of messages refer to a new antecedent;
determining that the third message and the fourth message are both generated by a third user of the first plurality of users; and
based on determining that the third message and the fourth message are both generated by the third user, refraining from modifying the document to remove the third message or the fourth message from the document.”
The limitation identifies, by human observation and evaluation, references of messages and user who generates message(s). Thus, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and it is not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. So, it does not include any additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7
The claim recites
“determining, based on the predictions generated by the co-referencing model, that a third message of the subset of the plurality of messages refers to a new antecedent included within a fourth message of the plurality of messages;
determining a third meaning and a fourth meaning of the third message and the fourth message, respectively, relating to the new antecedent;
determining that the third meaning and the fourth meaning are within the threshold similarity of each other; and
based on determining that the third meaning and the fourth meaning are within the threshold similarity of each other, modifying the document to remove the third message from the document.”
The limitation identifies, by human observation and evaluation, antecedent between messages and meanings of message(s) to determine messages within threshold similarity and decide removal of message(s) based on the threshold similarity. Thus, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and it is not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. So, it does not include any additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8
The claim recites
“determining, based on the predictions generated by the co-referencing model, that a third message of the subset of the plurality of messages refers to a fourth message of the plurality of messages;
determining a third meaning and a fourth meaning of the third message and the fourth message, respectively;
determining that the third meaning and the fourth meaning are within the threshold similarity of each other; and
based on determining that the third meaning and the fourth meaning are within the threshold similarity of each other, modifying the document to remove the third message from the document.”
The limitation identifies, by human observation and evaluation, references of messages and meanings of message(s) to determine messages within threshold similarity and decide removal of message(s) based on the threshold similarity. Thus, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and it is not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. So, it does not include any additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9
The claim recites “the document is generated for release to a second plurality of users.”
The limitation indicates document is release for a group of users. Thus, the limitation is just an insignificant extra-solution activity and is not integrated into a practical application. So, it does not include any additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10
The claim recites “releasing the modified document to the second plurality of users.”
The limitation releases document to a group of users. Thus, the limitation is just an insignificant extra-solution activity and is not integrated into a practical application. So, it does not include any additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11
The claim recites “the one or more references comprise one or more of pronouns, demonstratives, and nominal phrases.”
The limitation defines references. Thus, the limitation is just an insignificant extra-solution activity and is not integrated into a practical application. So, it does not include any additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12
The claim recites “processing, using a natural language processing model, the first message and the second message to determine the first meaning and the second meaning, respectively.”
The limitation identifies, by human observation and evaluation, meaning of message(s). Thus, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and it is not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. So, it does not include any additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1
Step 1
The claim is statutory because it is directed to a device.
Step 2A, prong 1
The claim recites limitations
“identifying, within a document generated for release to a second plurality of users, a plurality of messages from a first plurality of users, wherein the plurality of messages relates to the document;
determining, within a subset of the plurality of messages, one or more references, wherein the one or more references comprise one or more of pronouns, demonstratives, and nominal phrases;
processing, using a co-referencing model, the document and the subset of the plurality of messages to determine an antecedent to which each reference refers, wherein the co-referencing model is trained to predict antecedents based on references within text;
determining, based on predictions generated by the co-referencing model, that both a first message and a second message of the subset of the plurality of messages refer to a particular antecedent;
processing, using a natural language processing model, the first message and the second message to determine a first meaning and a second meaning, respectively, relating to the particular antecedent;
based on determining that the first meaning and the second meaning are within a threshold similarity of each other, modifying the document to remove the second message from the document; and
releasing the modified document to the second plurality of users.”
The steps of “identifying, within a document generated for release to a second plurality of users, a plurality of messages from a first plurality of users, wherein the plurality of messages relates to the document; and determining, within a subset of the plurality of messages, one or more references …” fall into category of Mental Processes as they rely on human observation and evaluation to identify references to portions of the document.
The steps of “processing … the document and the subset of the plurality of messages to determine an antecedent to which each reference refers …; determining, based on predictions … that both a first message and a second message of the subset of the plurality of messages refer to a particular antecedent; processing … the first message and the second message to determine a first meaning and a second meaning, respectively, relating to the particular antecedent” fall into category of Mental Processes as they rely on human observation and evaluation to identify antecedent that reference refers and identify meaning of messages.
The steps of “based on determining that the first meaning and the second meaning are within a threshold similarity of each other, modifying the document to remove the second message from the document” fall into category of Mental Processes as they rely on human observation and evaluation to determine the meanings of messages are within threshold similarity of each other to decide a removal of one of the messages.
Furthermore, the step “modifying the document to remove the second message” can be performed by human with an aid of paper and pen. Hence, this step is also directed to abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim recites additional limitation “releasing the modified document to the second plurality of users.” The additional limitation just releases document to user. It is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
further recites additional elements “one or more processors; one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media; and co-referencing model”. The additional elements are recited as high level of generality and used as a tool to perform the limitations. Thus, the additional limitation and the additional element are not indicative of an integration into a practical application.
Steps 2B
The claim as a whole is not amounted to significantly more than the judicial exception and is, therefore, directed to an abstract idea. In other words, claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claim 13
Step 1
The claim is statutory because it is directed to a product.
Step 2A, prong 1
The claim recites limitations
“identifying, within a document, a plurality of messages relating to the document;
determining, within a subset of the plurality of messages, one or more references to one or more portions of the document;
processing, using a co-referencing model, the document and the subset of the plurality of messages to determine an antecedent to which each reference refers, wherein the co-referencing model is trained to predict antecedents based on references;
determining, based on predictions generated by the co-referencing model, that a first message of the subset of the plurality of messages refers to a particular antecedent included within a second message of the subset of the plurality of messages;
determining a first meaning and a second meaning of the first message and the second message, respectively, relating to the particular antecedent; and
based on determining that the first meaning and the second meaning are within a threshold similarity of each other, modifying the document to remove the first message from the document.”
The steps of “identifying, within a document, a plurality of messages relating to the document; determining, within a subset of the plurality of messages, one or more references to one or more portions of the document” fall into category of Mental Processes as they rely on human observation and evaluation to identify references to portions of the document.
The steps of “processing … the document and the subset of the plurality of messages to determine an antecedent to which each reference refers …; determining, based on predictions …, that a first message of the subset of the plurality of messages refers to a particular antecedent …; and determining a first meaning and a second meaning of the first message and the second message …” fall into category of Mental Processes as they rely on human observation and evaluation to identify antecedent that reference refers and identify meanings of messages.
The steps of “based on determining that the first meaning and the second meaning are within a threshold similarity of each other, modifying the document to remove the first message from the document” fall into category of Mental Processes as they rely on human observation and evaluation to determine the meanings of messages are within threshold similarity of each other to decide a removal of one of the messages.
Furthermore, the step “modifying the document to remove the second message” can be performed by human with an aid of paper and pen. Hence, this step is also directed to abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim further recites additional element “co-referencing model”. The additional element is recited as high level of generality and used as a tool to perform the limitations. Thus, the additional element is not indicative of an integration into a practical application.
Steps 2B
The claim as a whole is not amounted to significantly more than the judicial exception and is, therefore, directed to an abstract idea. In other words, claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Analysis of claims 14 – 20
Claims 14 – 20 recite limitations in the same manner as claims 3 – 6, 8, and 11 – 12 respectively; therefore, claims 14 – 20 are also rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nefedov et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0074771 A1) teaches
“A system for condensing messages , the system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, causing the system to perform operations comprising:
identifying, within a document generated for , a plurality of messages wherein the plurality of messages relates to the document;
determining, within a subset of the plurality of messages, one or more references, wherein the one or more references comprise one or more of pronouns, demonstratives, and nominal phrases;
processing, the document and the subset of the plurality of messages ;
;
processing, using a natural language processing model, the first message and the second message to determine a first meaning and a second meaning, respectively, ;
based on determining that the first meaning and the second meaning are within a threshold similarity of each other, modifying the document to remove the second message from the document; and
.”
Miyazaki (Pub. No. US 2011/0023021 A1) teaches
“A system for condensing messages associated with software release notes;
identifying, within a document generated for release to a second plurality of users, a plurality of messages from a first plurality of users, wherein the plurality of messages relates to the document;
releasing the modified document to the second plurality of users.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CUONG V LUU whose telephone number is (571)270-1733. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 AM - 3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at (571) 272-6799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CUONG V LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights