DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/18/25 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a system for analyzing documents, the system comprising: one or more memory devices having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: retrieving, from a publicly available database of the documents, a document, wherein the document comprises metadata relating to the document; extracting media embedded in the document and generating a media file containing the extracted media and a text file containing extracted text; analyzing, using a computer-vision model, the media file to identify and extract data from within the extracted media; processing, using a text extraction model, at least one of the text file or a text file generated from the text file to generate a plurality of text portions from the extracted text; generating, using an embedding model, a plurality of embeddings for the plurality of text portions; generating a dataset comprising the plurality of text portions, the plurality of embeddings, and at least a portion of the metadata, wherein the dataset is configured to be queried to provide contextual data regarding the document from the plurality of text portions; and processing the dataset to identify one or more product modifications to one or more products or to identify one or more new products based on information from the dataset.
The limitations of extracting media embedded in the document and generating a media file containing the extracted media and a text file containing extracted text; analyzing, ..., the media file to identify and extract data from within the extracted media; processing, using a text extraction model, at least one of the text file or a text file generated from the text file to generate a plurality of text portions from the extracted text; generating, using an embedding model, a plurality of embeddings for the plurality of text portions; generating a dataset comprising the plurality of text portions, the plurality of embeddings, and at least a portion of the metadata; and processing the dataset to identify one or more product modifications to one or more products or to identify one or more new products based on information from the dataset, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes but from the recitation of implementing them on generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “using a computer-vision model” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “using a computer-vision model” or “using an embedding model” language, the limitations pertaining to “extracting”, ”analyzing”, “processing”, “generating”, “generating” and “processing” in the context of this claim encompass the user analyzing/judging media (e.g., tables, graphs in light of [0062]) embedded in a document and judging/writing down using a pen and paper a media file and a text file containing the extracted media and text, analyzing the media file and judging data extracted, analyzing the text file or another text file and judging text portions from the extracted text, judging embeddings of the text portions, judging a dataset comprising the text portions, embeddings, and at least a portion of the metadata, and judging product modifications or new products based on the dataset. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of – a system for analyzing documents, the system comprising: one or more memory devices having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: retrieving, from a publicly available database of the documents, a document, wherein the document comprises metadata relating to the document; and generating a media file containing the extracted media and a text file containing extracted text; using a computer-vision model; wherein the dataset is configured to be queried to provide contextual data regarding the document from the plurality of text portions. The system, publicly available database, models, memory devices, and processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional elements pertaining to “retrieving” and “dataset configured to be queried” represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The limitation pertaining to using a computer-vision module generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, the computer-vision module links the abstract idea (mental process step) to the field of data modeling. Further, the judicial exception of “analyzing” is performed “using a computer-vision model.” This model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the model functions to accomplish this step, and therefore, it amounts to no more than applying the judicial exception using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, The additional elements pertaining to “retrieving” and “dataset configured to be queried” represent insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) and 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). Further, the additional element pertaining to using a computer-vision model generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, this limitation amounts to no more than applying the judicial exception using a generic computer because the model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how it functions to accomplish this step. Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 11 recites a computer-implemented method for analyzing documents filed by a plurality of third-party entities, the computer-implemented method comprising: retrieving, using one or more processors and one or more computer-readable storage media having instructions stored thereon executable by the one or more processors, from a publicly available database of the documents filed by the plurality of third-party entities, a document filed by a third-party entity of the plurality of third-party entities, wherein the document comprises metadata relating to the document and to the third-party entity; extracting, using the one or more processors, media embedded in the document and generating a media file containing the extracted media and a text file containing extracted text; analyzing, using the one or more processors and using a computer-vision model, the media file to identify and extract data from within the extracted media; processing, using the one or more processors and using a text extraction model, at least one of the text file or a text file generated from the text file to generate a plurality of text portions from the extracted text; generating, using the one or more processors and using an embedding model, a plurality of embeddings for the plurality of text portions; generating, using the one or more processors, a dataset comprising the plurality of text portions, the plurality of embeddings, and at least a portion of the metadata, wherein the dataset is configured to be queried to provide contextual data regarding the document and the third-party entity from the plurality of text portions; and processing the dataset to identify one or more product modifications to one or more products or to identify one or more new products based on information from the dataset.
The limitations of extracting, ..., media embedded in the document and generating a media file containing the extracted media and a text file containing extracted text; analyzing, ..., the media file to identify and extract data from within the extracted media; processing, ... and using a text extraction model, at least one of the text file or a text file generated from the text file to generate a plurality of text portions from the extracted text; generating, ... and using an embedding model, a plurality of embeddings for the plurality of text portions; generating, ..., a dataset comprising the plurality of text portions, the plurality of embeddings, and at least a portion of the metadata; and processing the dataset to identify one or more product modifications to one or more products or to identify one or more new products based on information from the dataset, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes but from the recitation of implementing them on generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “using the one or more processors” or “using a computer-vision model” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “using the one or more processors”, “using a computer-vision model”, and/or “using an embedding model” language, the limitations pertaining to “extracting”, “”analyzing”, “processing”, “generating”, “generating” and “processing” in the context of this claim encompass the user analyzing/judging media (e.g., tables, graphs in light of [0062]) embedded in a document and judging/writing down using a pen and paper a media file and a text file containing the extracted media and text, analyzing the media file and judging data extracted, analyzing the text file or another text file and judging text portions from the extracted text, judging embeddings of the text portions, judging a dataset comprising the text portions, embeddings, and at least a portion of the metadata, and judging product modifications or new products based on the dataset. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 11 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of – a computer-implemented method for analyzing documents filed by a plurality of third-party entities, the computer-implemented method comprising: retrieving, using one or more processors and one or more computer-readable storage media having instructions stored thereon executable by the one or more processors, from a publicly available database of the documents filed by the plurality of third-party entities, a document filed by a third-party entity of the plurality of third-party entities, wherein the document comprises metadata relating to the document and to the third-party entity; using the one or more processors; using a computer-vision model; wherein the dataset is configured to be queried to provide contextual data regarding the document and the third-party entity from the plurality of text portions. The computer, publicly available database, models, computer-readable storage media, and processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional elements pertaining to “retrieving” and “dataset configured to be queried” represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The limitation pertaining to using a computer-vision module generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, the computer-vision module links the abstract idea (mental process step) to the field of data modeling. Further, the judicial exception of “analyzing” is performed “using a computer-vision model.” This model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the model functions to accomplish this step, and therefore, it amounts to no more than applying the judicial exception using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, The additional elements pertaining to “retrieving” and “dataset configured to be queried” represent insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) and 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). Further, the additional element pertaining to using a computer-vision model generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, this limitation amounts to no more than applying the judicial exception using a generic computer because the model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how it functions to accomplish this step. Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: retrieving, from a publicly available database of documents filed by a plurality of third-party entities, multiple documents, wherein each of the multiple documents comprise metadata, and wherein the multiple documents relate to multiple topics and the plurality of third-party entities; extracting media embedded in the multiple documents and generating a media file containing the extracted media and a text file containing extracted text; analyzing, using a computer-vision model, the media file to identify and extract data from within the extracted media; processing, using a text extraction model, at least one of the text file or a text file generated from the text file to generate a plurality of text portions from the extracted text; generating, using an embedding model, a plurality of embeddings for the plurality of text portions; generating a dataset comprising the plurality of text portions, the plurality of embeddings, and at least a portion of the metadata, wherein the dataset is configured to be queried to provide contextual data regarding the multiple documents and the plurality of third-party entities from the plurality of text portions; receiving, from a user, a query related to the dataset; processing, using the embedding model, the query to determine a correspondence between the query and a subset of the plurality of embeddings; identifying, from the dataset based upon the determined correspondence, a subset of the plurality of text portions associated with the subset of the plurality of embeddings; retrieving a subset of documents associated with the subset of the plurality of text portions; displaying, to the user via a graphical user interface, at least one of the subset of the plurality of text portions or a subset of the metadata associated with the subset of documents; and processing the dataset to identify one or more product modifications to one or more products or to identify one or more new products based on information from the dataset.
The limitations of extracting media embedded in the multiple documents and generating a media file containing the extracted media and a text file containing extracted text; analyzing, ..., the media file to identify and extract data from within the extracted media; processing, using a text extraction model, at least one of the text file or a text file generated from the text file to generate a plurality of text portions from the extracted text; generating, using an embedding model, a plurality of embeddings for the plurality of text portions; generating a dataset comprising the plurality of text portions, the plurality of embeddings, and at least a portion of the metadata, wherein the dataset is configured to be queried to provide contextual data regarding the multiple documents and the plurality of third-party entities from the plurality of text portions; processing, using the embedding model, the query to determine a correspondence between the query and a subset of the plurality of embeddings; identifying, from the dataset based upon the determined correspondence, a subset of the plurality of text portions associated with the subset of the plurality of embeddings; and processing the dataset to identify one or more product modifications to one or more products or to identify one or more new products based on information from the dataset, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes but from the recitation of implementing them on generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “using a computer-vision model” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “using a computer-vision model” or “using an embedding model” language, the limitations pertaining to “extracting”, ”analyzing”, “processing”, “generating”, “generating”, “processing” “identifying”, and “processing” in the context of this claim encompass the user analyzing/judging media (e.g., tables, graphs in light of [0062]) embedded in a document and judging/writing down using a pen and paper a media file and a text file containing the extracted media and text, analyzing the media file and judging data extracted, analyzing the text file or another text file and judging text portions from the extracted text, judging embeddings of the text portions, judging a dataset comprising the text portions, embeddings, and at least a portion of the metadata, processing a query by judging a correspondence, judging a subset of the plurality of text portions base don the correspondence, and judging product modifications or new products based on the dataset. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 19 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of – a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: retrieving, from a publicly available database of documents filed by a plurality of third-party entities, multiple documents, wherein each of the multiple documents comprise metadata, and wherein the multiple documents relate to multiple topics and the plurality of third-party entities; ...and generating a media file containing the extracted media and a text file containing extracted text; using a computer-vision model; wherein the dataset is configured to be queried to provide contextual data regarding the multiple documents and the plurality of third-party entities from the plurality of text portions; receiving, from a user, a query related to the dataset; retrieving a subset of documents associated with the subset of the plurality of text portions; displaying, to the user via a graphical user interface, at least one of the subset of the plurality of text portions or a subset of the metadata associated with the subset of documents; and processing the dataset to identify one or more product modifications to one or more products or to identify one or more new products based on information from the dataset. The non-transitory computer readable medium, processors, publicly available database, and models are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional elements pertaining to “retrieving”, “dataset configured to be queried”, “receiving”, “retrieving”, and “displaying” represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The limitation pertaining to using a computer-vision module generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, the computer-vision module links the abstract idea (mental process step) to the field of data modeling. Further, the judicial exception of “analyzing” is performed “using a computer-vision model.” This model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the model functions to accomplish this step, and therefore, it amounts to no more than applying the judicial exception using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, The additional elements pertaining to “retrieving”, “dataset configured to be queried”, “receiving”, “retrieving”, and “displaying” represent insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of data processing, data display, and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), 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), and presenting offers, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Further, the additional element pertaining to using a computer-vision model generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, this limitation amounts to no more than applying the judicial exception using a generic computer because the model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how it functions to accomplish this step. Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10, 12-18, 20 depend on claims and include all the limitations of these claims. Therefore, these claims are directed to the same abstract idea and the analysis must proceed to (Step 2A, Prong 2).
Claims 2, 16 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to generating table, textual summary, or CSV. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a table or text summary, and perhaps, writing it down using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2, 16 are not patent eligible.
Claims 3-4, 18 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to extracted text identified by a machine learning model using vectorization, storing the plurality of embeddings and a vector database. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of identifying extracted text and identifying text portions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, the limitation pertaining to “by a machine learning model” is recited as being performed using generic computing components at a high level of generality. In the limitation pertaining to “storing the plurality of embeddings”, computing components (vector database) are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of (storing data). See MPEP 2106.05(f). In the limitations pertaining to “identifying extracted text” and “vectorization”, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The judicial exception of “identifying extracted text” are performed “by a machine learning model using vectorization”. The machine learning model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the trained machine learning model functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “extracted text identified” and do not include any details about how this is accomplished using vectorization. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of “by a machine learning model using vectorization” in the limitations also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “by a machine learning model using vectorization” limits the identified judicial exception, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning or neural networks), and thus, fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). These additional steps, in part, are considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation pertaining to pertaining to storing and a vector database configured to be queried are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. The additional element of “by a machine learning model using vectorization” is, at best, mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element pertaining to storing and a vector database configured to be queried are insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of 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). Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 3-4, 18 are not patent eligible.
Claims 5, 17 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to generating a modified text version and generating the text portions. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a modified text version of a text file by applying rules and judging the text version from this modified text version, and perhaps, writing all of this down using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 5, 17 are not patent eligible
Claim 6 recites additional limitations pertaining to the metadata. This additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely limits the metadata in the insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which is a mere data gathering step, that retrieves documents comprising metadata from a publicly available database. Accordingly, these 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.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of 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). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 7 ,12 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to receiving, processing, identifying, and retrieving. The limitations pertaining to processing and identifying are directed to mental process steps that could encompass mere judgments. The additional limitations pertaining to receiving and retrieving do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these 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.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of 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). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 8, 13, 20 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to receiving, identifying, and displaying. The limitation pertaining to identifying is directed to mental process step that could encompass a mere judgment. The additional limitations pertaining to receiving and displaying do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and the receiving is a mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these 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.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing, data display, and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) and presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.. Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 9, 14 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to search parameters, filtering, and keyword/vector weight. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of identifying documents based on search parameters which comprise a weight, judging a filtering of documents based a on a weight which judges an amount of keyword similarity. The claims also recite generic computing components performing generic computing functions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent further mental process steps. The claims also recite generic computing components performing generic computing functions. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 9, 14 are not patent eligible.
Claims 10, 15 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to notifying a user. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these 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.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of 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), receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), and perhaps, presenting offers, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the amendment filed on 11/18/25.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 10, applicant argues that the human mind is incapable of “identifying and extracting”, “generating a plurality of embeddings”, or “generating a dataset”.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that aside from reciting the use of generic computing components, the limitations listed are each directed to an abstract idea. That is, they encompass mere analysis and/or judgements, and specifically, the generating of the dataset is also not tied to any sort of data structure and is merely recited in the context of being used with generic computing components.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 11, applicant argues that when considered as a whole, claim 1 integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application because it demonstrates that any alleged abstract feature is integrated into a practical application and that the models perform specific tasks in a specific manner to process documents prepared in a unique format
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the claims do not recite unique models that perform specific tasks in a specific manner to process documents prepared in a unique format. That is, while the claims do recite different models for performing different tasks, the independent claims are silent regarding formatting. MPEP 2106.05(a) states that “after the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology.” Further, the claims do not describe what is comprised within the models, or, how the models function aside from them being implemented with generic computing components.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 12, applicant argues that claim 1 provides a technical solution because it results in an improvement to document analysis and cites [0035].
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that this paragraph from the specification describes models used to analyze and process complex documents with varying formats. Nothing in the claims limits the documents to being complex or reflects that the various models process documents with varying formats.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 12, applicant argues that the use of multiple models optimizes document analysis because each of the models performs a specific task which improves its ability to perform the task and may reduce processing times.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that, as aforementioned, the claims do not describe what is comprised within the models, or, how the models function aside from them being implemented with generic computing components. Further, the claims do not even recite if the models are performed in parallel or concurrently. Therefore, it is not clear how they would reduce processing times, necessarily.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 13, applicant argues that the use of multiple models allows both embedded media and text from a single document to be effectively processed to generate a dataset and identify one or more product modifications.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the claims do not recite that embedded media and text from a single document are processed to generate and identify.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 13, applicant argues that claim 1 covers a particular solution to a problem.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that, as aforementioned, the claims do not describe what is comprised within the models, or, how the models function aside from them being implemented with generic computing components. Therefore, the specific use of these models does not necessarily solve any problems nor does it provide an improvement to the functioning of the computer of the technology.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 13, applicant argues that the limitation pertaining to processing the dataset to identify recites a specific practical application.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that this limitation encompasses a mere judgment, and thus, is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 14, applicant argues that the alleged additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because a query may be used such that relevant data with respect to the query is identified from the dataset.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the additional elements recite mere data gathering steps and would not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 14, applicant argues that the use of a query provides a technical benefit of reducing processing time and result in the user performing fewer searches.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the use of a query recites insignificant extra-solution activity that is well understood, routine, and conventionally known. Further, the identifying step is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations do not recite any improvements in the functioning of the computer or the technology.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 15, applicant argues that applicant disagrees and that claim 1 recites elements that provide significantly more.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the applicant has not specified which elements they believe provide significantly more with supporting rationale.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 15, applicant argues that the claims cover a particular solution to a particular problem, and thus are eligible under 2B.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the examiner’s response to similar arguments above would be the same.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P BARTLETT whose telephone number is (469)295-9085. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 11:30-8:30, F 11-3.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached on 571-272-9782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/WILLIAM P BARTLETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169