Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application 18/914,597, filed on 10/14/2024 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application is a CON of 17/976,439 filed on 10/28/2022 is now US PAT 12,158,900
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s remarks filed on 2/13/2026
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on
2/13/2026 has been entered
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 10/14/2024 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, for examiner’s response, see discussion below:
At page 6-7, claim 1,9,15, applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully disagrees , the term “degree of association” is defined by serval examples in the specification as the probability of given character string (e.g word) being associated with a particular region of the document (spe: 0062)
Examiner’s response:
As to the above argument(a), examiner notes “degree of association” still found to be indefinite in meaning as in claim 1,9,15. Those of ordinary skill in the art could have varying meanings of what is indicative of “degree of association”. Applicant’s instant specification suggests for example word may associated with particular region of the document, while word may not associated with respect to either frequently co-occur or semantically linked word or character string in order to have “degree of association”. As such “degree of association” appears relative term, which renders the claim indefinite, and claim scope cannot apprised by those of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore the examiner finds this argument not persuasive, applicant may further consider clarifying claim language
At page 7, claim 1-20, applicant argues:
Applicant disagrees because at least the claim limitations of "for each entry of the record, determining a degree of association between the entry and an item of information referenced by the entry; selecting, among a plurality of degrees of association between entries of the data structure and corresponding character strings, a set of degrees of association whose aggregate degree of association satisfies a criterion; and training, using the set of degrees of association, a machine learning model to extract information from new documents" are clearly directed to practical applications of the claimed methods and/or systems.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner submits that the pending claims (as filed 9/30/2025) should pass the test set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published on January 7, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 50), as updated October 2019, referred to herein as the PEG 2019. Applicant will focus on Prong Two of Step 2A, in evaluating the pending claims using this section of the test set forth in the PEG 2019
As explained in the 2019 PEG, the evaluation of Prong Two of Step 2A requires the use of the considerations (e.g. improving technology, effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis, implementing with a particular machine, etc.) identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, to ensure that the claim as a whole “integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” These considerations are set forth in the 2019 PEG, MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), and MPEP 2106.05(e) through (h). Note, a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. However, the specificity of the claim limitations is relevant to the evaluation of several considerations including the use of a particular machine, particular transformation and whether the limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception. If the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application based upon evaluation of these considerations, the additional limitations impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is eligible at Step 2A.
For example, if the additional limitations (filed 2/13/2026) “wherein the specified location comprises coordinates of a bounding rectangle………….” Along with other limitations of claim 1 do not provide “improvement to another technology or technical field”, for example receiving, identify, determining a degree of association, does not provide any details about how the “degree of association” relevant and/or made with respect to plain meaning of what criteria satisfies “degree of association, but encompasses mental observations or evaluations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations mental process user/actor that constitute certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer component(s) and/or general-purpose computer processor to implement the abstract idea, in consistent with the example(s) 39,47. As discussed, the claims (2/13/2026) the broadest reasonable interpretation of above steps is that those steps fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Taking the claim 1 (2/13/2026) elements separately, the functions performed in claim 1
such as receiving, identifying, selecting………. are purely conventional, well-understood, routine, and conventional functions previously known to the industry. See e.g., Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838F.3d 1307,1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining that receiving, processing, and sending data are well-known, generic computer-implemented steps) amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components performing routine computer functions, further claim 1 limitation, “training” using the set of degrees of association, a machine learning model………..mere data gathering recited at high levelof generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity, See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and output[ing]. See MPEP 2106.05. As such, in claim 1 limitation(s), the computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f), therefore, is not enough to transform an “abstract idea” into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 US at 225-26; see also Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372,1378 (Fed.Cir.2017) (sequence of receiving, analyzing, modifying, generating, displaying, and transmitting data recited an abstraction)
Examiner applies above arguments to claim 9,15, and claims 2-8,10-14,16-20 depend from claim 1,9,15.
At page 8-9, claim 1, applicant argues
The cited taken individually or in combination, at least fail to teach or even suggest the claimed "wherein the specified location comprises coordinates of a bounding rectangle defining a field in the document."
Examiners response:
As best understood by the examiner, the prior art of Shah is directed to extracting topics from the text content particularly generating set of sentences from the document used in classifying data in training machine learning model (Shah: Abstract), the prior rt of Shah teaches identifying related entities from the contextual word(s) forming sentences labelled in using training data sets (Shah: 0004). The prior art of Shah teaches relationship between sentences, topics, entities represented in the GraphQL that including identifying respective association between entities, trending entities, as such the prior art of Shah suggests related entities of close association recommends predicted labels or topics along with the extracted topic entities (Shah: fig 1, Abstract, 0026,0037-0038 ) is identical to instant specification para 0035,0049, degree of association between item(s). As such, the prior art of Shah teaches sentences labelled from the document(s) associated as entities is integral part of labeled sentences and paragraph classified and used as t4raining data sets (Shah: 0008-0009)
The prior art of Wyle is directed to determining similar targets in different document particularly obtaining a coordinate location of the specific target document performing OCR on the document to find the and/or obtaining location of the OCR element recognition (Wyle: Abstract). The prior art of Wyle teaches X-Y coordinates to determine specific location of the specific interest in the document including X-Y position, further x-y coordinates are used to form rectangular bounding box usually axis-aligned, rectangle defines x-y coordinates);
PNG
media_image1.png
148
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
181
235
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“aggregate degree of association” (Wyle: 0011, fig 1, fig 3, 0041,0043,0054 – Wyle teaches document statistical properties particularly determine a match, these metrics for all possible matches. Wyle teaches aggregate degree of association between new and historical documents, further computing respective similarity statistical scores distribution as detailed in fig 3
PNG
media_image3.png
199
155
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
158
169
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention implicit coordinates and local neighborhood identifying targeted documents of Wyle et al., into extracting fine-grained topics from the text entities, related entities, trending related entities using multi-label classifier trained data set of Shah et al., because both Shah, Wyle teaches neural network, machine learning model (Shah: Abstract, fig 1; Wyle: 0012,0037, 0043) and they both Shah, Wyle teaches document index(ing) (Shah: fig 1, 0026, Wyle: 0043) and they both Shah, Iso are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Shah Wyle teaches machine learning, train(ing) data model, and document index, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly identifying specific document X,Y location , conduct pairwise comparisons between similar legions of interest in both new document, historical document computing document corpus population statistics in finding the degree of association (Wyle: 0042-0043, 0045) thereby dynamically perform document changes, while comparing document text values, X-Y coordinate positing and performing statistical match metrics (Wyle: fig 3) to achieve predictable result of document(s) relationship, thereby improves quality and reliability of the system.
Examiner applies above arguments to claims 9,15, and claims 2-8,10-14,16-20 depend from claim 1,9,15
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1,9-12,15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1-2,4,6,9,15, it is unclear what is meant by “for each entry of the record…….. determining a degree of association ……. item of information referenced by the entry;
selecting, among a plurality of degrees of association ……… data structure and corresponding character strings, a set of degrees of association whose aggregate degree of association satisfies a criterion; and
training, using the set of degrees of association, a machine learning model to extract information from new documents, particularly “degree of association, and “aggregate degree of association”, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "degree" of association is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner notes as constructed “degree” of association is a relative term in which claim scope cannot apprised by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner applies above arguments to claim 9,15, and claims 2-8,10-14,16-20 depend from claim 1,9,15.
As to claim 2, 10, 16, it is unclear what is meant by “updating the “degree of association…….search, as such degree of association is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite
As to claim 4,11,17, it is unclear what is meant by “updating the “degree of association…………detecting fields with a neural network model”, as such degree of association is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite
As to claim 6,12,18, it is unclear what is meant by “updating the “degree of association…………by receiving identification……..”, as such degree of association is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite
As to claim 7,13,19, it is unclear what is meant by “eliminating the “degree of association…………that are lower than a predefined threshold value……..”, as such degree of association is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite
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. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, hereinafter 2019 PEG
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method of claim 1,9,15, directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted, and the limitations directed to additional elements are highlighted, as set forth in exemplary claim 1
claims1,9,15. A method comprising:
receiving, by a processing device, a document;
identifying, in a data structure, a record corresponding to the document, the record comprising one or more entries, each entry containing data referencing a respective item of information extracted from a specified location of the document, wherein the specified location comprises coordinates of a bounding rectangle defining a field in the document;
for each entry of the record, determining a degree of association between the entry and an item of information referenced by the entry;
selecting, among a plurality of degrees of association between entries of the data structure and corresponding character strings, a set of degrees of association whose aggregate degree of association satisfies a criterion; and
training, using the set of degrees of association, a machine learning model to extract information from new documents, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, particularly this type of limitation merely suggests “data structure”, confines the use of the abstract idea to a “data structure”, i.e., particular technological environment (training…..machine learning model) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims . See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim 1,9,15 does not put any limits on how the data “receiving”, “identifying”, “selecting” as encompassing receiving “data structure” record in a machine learning model environment (training algorithm). When given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it appears mere using training algorithm. The above “receiving”, “identifying”, “selecting” steps are all recited as being performed by a generic computer. The recited computer is recited at a high level of generality i.e, as a generic computer performing generic computer functions. As noted the step “training” using the set of ……..”machine learning model”…….new document, encompasses mental observations or evaluations e., a computer programmer’s mental identification of the new document in a data set (training). The claim does not impose any limits on how the extract information from ”new document”
Based on the plain meaning of the words in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1,9,15 receives “training” data at a computer, uses the computer to continuous training data to extract new document
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 set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure of gallery images collect(ion) that identify particular match, to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (para 0005-0008,0027,0048,0093-0095, fig 7, of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is tantamount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition para 0005-0008, 0027, 0048, 0093-0095, fig 7 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc...
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
Claim 2,10,16, further elaborates “updating the degree of association by identifying character strings by performing a word search”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea..
Claim 3, further elaborates “wherein the performing the word search further comprises:
searching a body of text in the document for a character string from the entry of the record by performing at least one of: an exact string search, a prefix search, an approximate string search, or an approximate prefix search”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea..
claim 4,11,17, further elaborates “updating the degree of association by detecting fields with a neural network model”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea..
Claim 5, further elaborates “wherein detecting the fields further comprises: matching a character string from the entry of the record with one or more fields based on the class of information associated with each field”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea..
Claim 6,12,18, further elaborates “updating the degree of association by receiving identification of character strings from a user interface”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea..
Claim 7,13,19, further elaborates “eliminating degrees of association that are lower than a predefined threshold value”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea..
Claim 8,14,20, further elaborates “combining degrees of association resulting from different character string identification methods”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah et al., (hereafter Shah), US Pub.No. 2023/0161964 filed on Nov,2021 in view of Wyle et al., (hereafter Wyle), US Pub. No. 2022/0319143 filed Apr 2022
As to claim 1,9,15, Shah teaches a system which including.a method comprising:
“receiving, by a processing device, a document” (Shah: Abstract , 0006, fig 2, element 202 0029 – Shah teaches document classification using multi-label classified,, documents may corresponds to for example news article and like);
PNG
media_image5.png
455
185
media_image5.png
Greyscale
“identifying, in a data structure, a record corresponding to the document, the record comprising one or more entries, each entry containing data referencing a respective item of information extracted from a specified location of the document”
(Shah: fig 1, 0021,0024,0026 – Shah teaches document processor, topic prediction and document index, further supports the document data structure including topic sentences, word vector, defining entities of the document such as relationship between sentences, topics and like, particularly Shah teaches multi-label classifier identifying words from the sentence(s)) from the topic extraction;
PNG
media_image6.png
391
295
media_image6.png
Greyscale
“for each entry of the record, determining association between the entry and an item of information referenced by the entry” ((Shah: fig 1, Abstract, 0026,0037-0038 – Shah teaches relationship between sentences, topics, entities represented in the GraphQL that including identifying respective association between entities, trending entities, as such the prior art of Shah suggests related entities of close association recommends predicted labels or topics along with the extracted topic entities is identical to instant specification para 0035,0049, degree of association between item(s);
“selecting, among a plurality of association between entries of the data structure and corresponding character strings, a set of association whose association satisfies a criterion” (Shah: fig 2, 0040-0041,0044-0046 – Shah teaches fine grained topics at a sentence level appears degree of association in selecting respective entities, the prior art of Shah teaches multi-label classifier (element 300) that supports set of word embeddings encodes text into high dimensional vectors that are used as set of corresponding degree of association among semantic similarities including sentences, phrases, or short paragraphs and like that meets the variety of tasks with the other natural language tasks as detailed in 0046) ; and
“training, using the set, a machine learning model to extract information from new documents” ”(Shah: 0009,page 2, col 2, para 0023, 0028, fig 1 – Shah teaches training data set from the document multi-label classifier particularly training data set created by generating word embeddings for a “set of sentences” using clustering technique applied on the pre-trained sentence embeddings or sub-word embeddings, further Shah teaches generating “a test data set”. It is further noted that the prior art of Shah specifically teaches sentences to entity, entity linking using subunit element 108 that identifies entities particularly recognizing relevant entities as preferred list of entities corresponds to degree of association because Shah’s system supports not only training system but also generate training data sets used for training a machine learning model as detailed in fig 1, 0028).
It is however, noted that the prior art of Shah does not teach “wherein the specified location comprises coordinates of a bounding rectangle defining a field in the document”, ”aggregate degree of association”, although Shah suggests extraction of words from the documents and/or sentences by keeping the meaning of the sentences intact, while changing the words by their synonyms or similar words, while maintaining consistency of the document sentences in the machine learning environment (Shah: 0004, furthermore, the prior art of Shah teaches sub-sampling that generates batches of similar sentence labelling each batch sentences label[ed] to represent association of similar sentences (Shah: fig 6). On the other hand, Wyle disclosed “wherein the specified location comprises coordinates of a bounding rectangle defining a field in the document” (Wyle: Abstract, 0009, 0056-0058, fig 8-9 – Wyle teaches different documents or using implicit coordinates for obtaining a coordinate location of the targeted and/or specific document for example first document identifying first element(s), it should be noted that location comprises coordinates corresponds to Wyle’s using X-Y coordinates to determine specific location of the specific interest in the document including X-Y position, further x-y coordinates are used to form rectangular bounding box usually axis-aligned, rectangle defines x-y coordinates);
PNG
media_image1.png
148
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
181
235
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“aggregate degree of association” (Wyle: 0011, fig 1, fig 3, 0041,0043,0054 – Wyle teaches document statistical properties particularly determine a match, these metrics for all possible matches. Wyle teaches aggregate degree of association between new and historical documents, further computing respective similarity statistical scores distribution as detailed in fig 3
PNG
media_image3.png
199
155
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
158
169
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention implicit coordinates and local neighborhood identifying targeted documents of Wyle et al., into extracting fine-grained topics from the text entities, related entities, trending related entities using multi-label classifier trained data set of Shah et al., because both Shah, Wyle teaches neural network, machine learning model (Shah: Abstract, fig 1; Wyle: 0012,0037, 0043) and they both Shah, Wyle teaches document index(ing) (Shah: fig 1, 0026, Wyle: 0043) and they both Shah, Iso are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Shah Wyle teaches machine learning, train(ing) data model, and document index, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly identifying specific document X,Y location , conduct pairwise comparisons between similar legions of interest in both new document, historical document computing document corpus population statistics in finding the degree of association (Wyle: 0042-0043, 0045) thereby dynamically perform document changes, while comparing document text values, X-Y coordinate positing and performing statistical match metrics (Wyle: fig 3) to achieve predictable result of document(s) relationship, thereby improves quality and reliability of the system.
Claim 2,10,16, the combination of Shah, Wyle disclosed:
“updating the by identifying character strings by performing a word search” (Shah: 0002, 0041). On the other hand, Wyle disclosed “degree of association” (Wyle: fig 1, fig 3, 0041,0043,0054)
As to claim 3, , the combination of Shah, Wyle disclosed:
“wherein the performing the word search further comprises”
searching a body of text in the document for a character string from the entry of the record by performing at least one of: an exact string search (Shah: 0026-0027);, a prefix search, an approximate string search, or an approximate prefix search (Shah: 0046-0047, 0051-0055, 0077).
As to claim 4,11,17, the combination of Shah, Wyle disclosed:
“updating the association by detecting fields with a neural network model”(Shah:0049-0050). On the other hand, Wyle disclosed “degree of association” (Wyle: fig 1, fig 3, 0041,0043,0054).
As to claim 5, the combination of Shah, Wyle disclosed:
“wherein detecting the fields further comprises: matching a character string from the entry of the record with one or more fields based on the class of information associated with each field” (Shah: 0050-0052, 0074).
As to claim 6,12,18, the combination of Shah, Wyle disclosed:
“updating the degree of association by receiving identification of character strings from a user interface” (Wyle: 0050,0058)
As to claim 7,13,19, the combination of Shah, Wyle disclosed:
“eliminating degrees of association that are lower than a predefined threshold value” (Wyle: 0094,0096).
As to claim 8,14,20, the combination of Shah, Wyle disclosed: “combining degrees of association resulting from different character string identification methods” (Wyle: 0029-0030,0036,0057).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2023/0161964
b. US Pub. No. 2022/0319143
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the 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)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154