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
This final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on July 22, 2026, wherein claims 5 and 7-16 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks/arguments have been fully considered but they are geared towards the newly and extensively amended claims with newly added limitations. The extensively amended claims and the newly added limitations are considered for the first time in the rejection below.
35 USC §101:
Applicant claimed concept is towards trademark management with abstract steps of classification for information, searching and analyzing prior literature/images/designs/etc., and produce reports (abstract information) which include risk analysis. The concept is not geared towards improving or effecting and technology or technical environment but is clearly directed to information analysis/manipulation/evaluation (including comparing information/data) to produce reports regarding trademarks and risks. Applicants’ claims are directed to managing intellectual property and abstract intellectual property (e.g. trademark) industry processes (searches, comparing abstract information, risk determinations (in IP field), grouping and categorizing information, etc.,) and the independent claims recite collecting/obtaining information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature (intellectual property type information from descriptions and figures and also stored intellectual property information and parameters)), data analysis/manipulation (comparing information, evaluations, matching, moving information around (grouping/categorizing), threshold determinations and comparing, risk possibilities determination, etc.,) to determine more data/information, possibly obtaining more abstract information/data, and providing this determined data/information (e.g. reports) for further analysis (using the reports and determined information) and decision-making. As a whole, Applicant’s claims are directed to organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (mitigating risk in intellectual property field, making recommendations and making industry decisions based on intellectual property/trademark determinations and issues)) and mental process (concepts performed in the human mind that include observation and evaluation (though search and comparisons/matchings), and judgments/decisions)). All the technical elements stated in the claims are all well-known generic/general-purpose elements used in an “apply-it” fashion – i.e. the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05). The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (for example, among others, “system, electronic device, processor, server, network interface controller, application program (software), non-transitory computer-readable memory storing the application program, user interface (to display/present various abstract information including texts and graphics), database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, etc.,), compiler, memory, etc.,” (in independent claim 5); “processor, electronic device, server, network interface controller, application program (software), non-transitory computer-readable memory, ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, etc.,), memory, database, login (logs into the system/network/etc.,), compiler, etc.,” (in independent claim 14); “system, processors, program instructions, electronic device, database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, displaying on interface (arranging pixels), etc.,),” (dependent claims 7-13); “processor, database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), displaying on interface (arranging pixels),” (dependent claims 15-16)). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (discussed above) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements (for example, among others, “system, electronic device, processor, server, network interface controller, application program (software), non-transitory computer-readable memory storing the application program, user interface (to display/present various abstract information including texts and graphics), database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, etc.,), compiler, memory, etc.,” (in independent claim 5); “processor, electronic device, server, network interface controller, application program (software), non-transitory computer-readable memory, ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, etc.,), memory, database, login (logs into the system/network/etc.,), compiler, etc.,” (in independent claim 14); “system, processors, program instructions, electronic device, database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, displaying on interface (arranging pixels), etc.,),” (dependent claims 7-13); “processor, database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), displaying on interface (arranging pixels),” (dependent claims 15-16)) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
Applicants’ claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The independent claims recite using known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (for example, among others, “system, electronic device, processor, server, network interface controller, application program (software), non-transitory computer-readable memory storing the application program, user interface (to display/present various abstract information including texts and graphics), database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, etc.,), compiler, memory, etc.,” (in independent claim 5); “processor, electronic device, server, network interface controller, application program (software), non-transitory computer-readable memory, ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, etc.,), memory, database, login (logs into the system/network/etc.,), compiler, etc.,” (in independent claim 14); “system, processors, program instructions, electronic device, database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, displaying on interface (arranging pixels), etc.,),” (dependent claims 7-13); “processor, database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), displaying on interface (arranging pixels),” (dependent claims 15-16)). There is clearly not enough technical detail so that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing a technical improvement. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, Applicants’ claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 is dependent on claim 8 (which depends on claim 7) but claim 13 is separated by claims that do not depend on claim 8 (instead being separate by claims depending on claim 5). A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
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 5 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, claims 14-16 are directed to a method (i.e., process), and claims 5 and 7-13 are directed to a system (i.e. machine). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claims (5, 14) are directed to managing intellectual property and abstract intellectual property (e.g. trademark) industry processes (searches, comparing abstract information, risk determinations (in IP field), grouping and categorizing information, etc.,) and the independent claims recite collecting/obtaining information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature (intellectual property type information from descriptions and figures and also stored intellectual property information and parameters)), data analysis/manipulation (comparing information, evaluations, matching, moving information around (grouping/categorizing), threshold determinations and comparing, risk possibilities determination, etc.,) to determine more data/information, possibly obtaining more abstract information/data, and providing this determined data/information (e.g. reports) for further analysis (using the reports and determined information) and decision-making.
The limitations of the independent claims (5, 14), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (mitigating risk in intellectual property field, making recommendations and making industry decisions based on intellectual property/trademark determinations and issues)) and mental process (concepts performed in the human mind that include observation and evaluation (though search and comparisons/matchings), and judgments/decisions)). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04). If claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitation as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), the claim limitations fall within the Mental process grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mental processes grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of well-known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms (for example, among others, “system, electronic device, processor, server, network interface controller, application program (software), non-transitory computer-readable memory storing the application program, user interface (to display/present various abstract information including texts and graphics), database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, etc.,), compiler, memory, etc.,” (in independent claim 5); “processor, electronic device, server, network interface controller, application program (software), non-transitory computer-readable memory, ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, etc.,), memory, database, login (logs into the system/network/etc.,), compiler, etc.,” (in independent claim 14)), in the context of the independent claims (5, 14), the claims encompass the above stated abstract idea (organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (mitigating risk in intellectual property field, making recommendations and making industry decisions based on intellectual property/trademark determinations and issues)) and mental process (concepts performed in the human mind that include observation and evaluation (though search and comparisons/matchings), and judgments/decisions))).
As shown above, the independent claims (5, 14) recite generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (for example, among others, “system, electronic device, processor, server, network interface controller, application program (software), non-transitory computer-readable memory storing the application program, user interface (to display/present various abstract information including texts and graphics), database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, etc.,), compiler, memory, etc.,” (in independent claim 5); “processor, electronic device, server, network interface controller, application program (software), non-transitory computer-readable memory, ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, etc.,), memory, database, login (logs into the system/network/etc.,), compiler, etc.,” (in independent claim 14)) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general purpose computer/computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04). The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (for example, among others, “system, electronic device, processor, server, network interface controller, application program (software), non-transitory computer-readable memory storing the application program, user interface (to display/present various abstract information including texts and graphics), database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, etc.,), compiler, memory, etc.,” (in independent claim 5); “processor, electronic device, server, network interface controller, application program (software), non-transitory computer-readable memory, ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, etc.,), memory, database, login (logs into the system/network/etc.,), compiler, etc.,” (in independent claim 14)). The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (discussed above) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements (for example, among others, “system, electronic device, processor, server, network interface controller, application program (software), non-transitory computer-readable memory storing the application program, user interface (to display/present various abstract information including texts and graphics), database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, etc.,), compiler, memory, etc.,” (in independent claim 5); “processor, electronic device, server, network interface controller, application program (software), non-transitory computer-readable memory, ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, etc.,), memory, database, login (logs into the system/network/etc.,), compiler, etc.,” (in independent claim 14)) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claims (5, 14) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The independent claims recite using known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (for example, among others, “system, electronic device, processor, server, network interface controller, application program (software), non-transitory computer-readable memory storing the application program, user interface (to display/present various abstract information including texts and graphics), database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, etc.,), compiler, memory, etc.,” (in independent claim 5); “processor, electronic device, server, network interface controller, application program (software), non-transitory computer-readable memory, ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, etc.,), memory, database, login (logs into the system/network/etc.,), compiler, etc.,” (in independent claim 14)). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, figure 4-6 and paragraphs 0021-0030, 0045, 0058, 0068 [where Applicant recites general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc., in Applicant’s specification]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claims into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements (for example, among others, “system, electronic device, processor, server, network interface controller, application program (software), non-transitory computer-readable memory storing the application program, user interface (to display/present various abstract information including texts and graphics), database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, etc.,), compiler, memory, etc.,” (in independent claim 5); “processor, electronic device, server, network interface controller, application program (software), non-transitory computer-readable memory, ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, etc.,), memory, database, login (logs into the system/network/etc.,), compiler, etc.,” (in independent claim 14)) or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344 (2014) discussing U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the independent claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the independent claims (5, 14) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims (7-13, 15-16) further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself. The above rejection discussed for the independent claims fully applies to the dependent claims.
The dependent claims (7-13, 15-16) further state using obtained data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature (intellectual property type information from descriptions and figures and also stored intellectual property information and parameters)), data analysis/manipulation (comparing information, evaluations, matching, moving information around (grouping/categorizing), threshold determinations and comparing, risk possibilities determination, etc.,) to determine more data/information, possibly obtaining more abstract information/data, and providing this determined data/information (e.g. reports) for further analysis (using the reports and determined information) and decision-making. These dependent claims also cover methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (mitigating risk in intellectual property field, making recommendations and making industry decisions based on intellectual property/trademark determinations and issues)) and mental process (concepts performed in the human mind that include observation and evaluation (though search and comparisons/matchings), and judgments/decisions)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite additional elements as generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (for example, “system, processors, program instructions, electronic device, database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, displaying on interface (arranging pixels), etc.,),” (independent claim 5’s dependent claims 7-13); “processor, database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), displaying on interface (arranging pixels),” (independent claim 14’s dependent claims 15-16)) performing generic computer/computing/technology functions. (MPEP 2106.04). The dependent claims (7-13, 15-16) merely use the same general technological environment and instructions as the independent claims above to implement the abstract idea. The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see above). Hence, the additional elements (for example, “system, processors, program instructions, electronic device, database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, displaying on interface (arranging pixels), etc.,),” (independent claim 5’s dependent claims 7-13); “processor, database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), displaying on interface (arranging pixels),” (independent claim 14’s dependent claims 15-16)) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
Also, the dependent claims (7-13, 15-16) either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself and the dependent claims (similar to the independent claims) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements (for example, “system, processors, program instructions, electronic device, database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), ML elements train/training data (stated but no technical details provided – e.g. train/training data, learning, large language model executed by the processor, displaying on interface (arranging pixels), etc.,),” (independent claim 5’s dependent claims 7-13); “processor, database, login (into the system/network/etc.,), displaying on interface (arranging pixels),” (independent claim 14’s dependent claims 15-16)) or combination of elements in the dependent claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344 (2014) discussing U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, dependent claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the dependent claims (7-13, 15-16) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
Prior art discussion (not a rejection)
As per the independent claims (5, 14), the closet prior art are Solmer (US 12,141,732), Jessen et al., (US 2016/0350886), and Plotkin (US 2024/0211685). However, neither Solmer nor Jessen nor Plotkin disclose the specific combined limitations of “a computational model trained with a natural language model and trademark classification tables and details, the computational model being executed by the processor in combination with the semantic analysis module and the classification module to parse the string information with ambiguous semantics or imprecise descriptions into trademark category recommendation information, and to generate the recommended application trademark category…the figure search unit converts an input figure into a vector representation through the conversion unit and conducts a matching search for a previous case in the database module through the figure comparison unit by computing a similarity metric and filtering out a previous case having a similarity score exceeding a predetermined value, the text search unit receives input text and searches for a previous case in the database module, and the search document generation module further ranks the similarity to generate a risk assessment report…risk management module…regenerate text and/or figures based on the learning of the content learning module and based on the previous cases (precedents) matched by the figure search unit and the text search unit…generate the pattern code corresponding to the brainstorming concept through the pattern generation language, and then generate the regenerated figure corresponding to the brainstorming concept through a compiler unit, and during the regeneration of the figure, the figure search unit will compare the similarity with the previous cases that have been searched, so that the similarity of the regenerated figure to the previous case is below the predetermined value.”
Additionally, given the specific ordered combination of the claim elements in the independent
claims cannot be found in the prior art (including art cited in PTO-892) and can only be found in
Applicant's Specification. The prior art of record (including art cite on PTO-892) does not teach or
suggest (the reference individually or in combination) Applicant's current independent claims as a whole
(it is the entire claimed concept described by the limitations collectively coming together that is not
rejected under prior art (the core concept is shown in the claim as a whole - limitations organized in
the specific form and coming together collectively to form the concept)). Furthermore, any combination
of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all of the claim elements would not be
obvious and would result in impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
As per the dependent claims, these claims depend on the independent claims above and
incorporate the limitations thereof, and are therefore not rejected under prior art for at least the same
rationale as applied to the independent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Note that all the claims are still rejected under §101 rejection above and are therefore not allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the pertinent art is as follows:
Budzyn (US 2004/0230568): Discusses investigating intellectual property relating to a product, an entity and/or trademark, and, optionally, other information relating to same. In particular, the method relies on certain bits of information which are used to establish search criteria. In one exemplary use, using known computing technology, a searcher will simply input a product's trademark, and one or more lists of relevant patents can be generated, preferably arranged in a hierarchy of importance, along with other relevant information.
Eder (US 2004/0215551): Provides for defining, measuring and continuously monitoring the matrix of value and the matrix of risk for a multi-enterprise commercial organization. A complete matrix of value is developed for each enterprise in the organization using predictive models and vector creation algorithms. The matrices of enterprise value are then used to support the creation of scenarios that contain all enterprise risk factors. A series of scenarios under both normal and extreme conditions are then developed in order to develop a complete matrix of risk for each enterprise in the organization and the organization as a whole. The information from these matrices is then used to calculate and display the matrix of value for the organization, the matrix of risk for the organization and the efficient frontier for organization financial performance. Forecast changes to the organization and its environment are then mapped to the matrices of value and risk for the organization and analyzed using probabilistic simulation models.
Carter (US 2010/0250479): Provides an information gathering module, a semantic abstract generation module, and an intellectual property space identification module. The information gathering module can retrieve information pertaining to intellectual property activities within a particular technical field. The semantic abstract generation module can generate semantic abstracts based on the information retrieved by the information gathering module. The intellectual property space identification module can perform an evaluation of the particular technical field based on the generated semantic abstracts.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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.
/Gurkanwaljit Singh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
