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 non-final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on October 19, 2024, wherein claims 1-18 are currently pending.
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 1-18 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:
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because Applicant has claimed a computer readable medium which could reasonably comprise a transitory propagating signal per se. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re ZIetz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. Here, Applicant has claimed a computer readable medium, and the specification is silent on whether this medium is explicitly non-transitory medium. Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the recited computer readable medium could be interpreted as a transitory propagating signal per se. As such, the claim must be rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In order to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, a claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multicellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 US.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.
Claims 1-16 are directed to a method (i.e., process) and claim 17 is directed to a system (i.e. machine).
Accordingly, claims 1-17 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. However, claim 18 is not 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 (14, 25, 26) and dependent claims (15-24) recite collecting/obtaining/extracting information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. document information including the text, sentences, phrases, etc., (and note that documents can be legal, medical etc., according to the specification para. 0022)), data/information analysis and manipulation to determine more abstract information/data (grouping data/information, comparing information, scoring, calculations, assessments of information from documents), and providing/displaying this determined data for further analysis and decision-making (assessments for risk and compliance purposes). The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further data (scoring, calculating values, ranking, etc.,).
The limitations of the independent claims (1, 17, 18) and dependent claims (2-16), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (documents review and assessment in business/industry/commercial relations (see Applicant’s specification para. 0022-0023 – legal, medical, company reporting, government policies))), mental activities (cover the performance of the limitation as concepts performed in the human mind – observation, assessment and evaluation from text in documents)), and mathematical concepts (using mathematical techniques and using the results of the techniques – see above). 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; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57. 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; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57. If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations then it falls within the Mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping, mental process grouping and mathematical concepts 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 old/well-known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms (see listing below), in the context of the independent claims (1, 17, 18) and dependent claims (2-16), the independent claims and dependent claims encompass the above stated abstract idea (organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (documents review and assessment in business/industry/commercial relations (see Applicant’s specification para. 0022-0023 – legal, medical, company reporting, government policies))), mental activities (cover the performance of the limitation as concepts performed in the human mind – observation, assessment and evaluation from text in documents)), and mathematical concepts (using mathematical techniques and using the results of the techniques – see above)). The old/well-known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations used in the claims (and in the specification) by the Applicant are in the following list/listing (additional elements):
no technical environment stated and no computer/computing elements/components stated – but has old and well-known software techniques – for example, unique identifier comprises at least one of a universally unique ID (UUID) and a composite key, checksum, etc., (in claims 9-11; note independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-8 and 12-16 do not show any technical environment and show no computer/computing elements/components);
system, processor, computer-readable storage medium, computer-executable, etc., (in independent claim 17); and
computer-readable storage medium, computer-executable , processor, etc., (independent claim 18).
(hereinafter the above list/listing will be referred to as “generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above)” or “additional elements (see list/listing above)” in the rest of the §101 rejection – i.e. whenever “generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above)” or “additional elements (see list/listing above)” is used/stated in the rest of the §101 rejection it is referring to and incorporates the above list/listing).
As shown above, the independent claims (1, 17, 18) and dependent claims (2-16) and specification recite generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general purpose computer/computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). 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 list/listing above). 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 (see list/listing above) 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 (1, 17, 18) and dependent claims (2-16) do not include additional elements (see list/listing above) 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 (1, 17, 18) and dependent claims (2-16) recite using known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above). 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, figs. 1-3 and paras. 0028-0038 [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 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 (see list/listing above) or combination of elements in the independent claims and dependent claims other than the abstract idea per se amount 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 (1, 17, 18) and dependent claims (2-16) 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 (1, 17, 18) and dependent claims (2-16) 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).
The dependent claims (2-16) further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The above rejection fully includes and details the discussion of dependent claims and the above rejection applies to all the dependent claim limitations. In summary, the dependent claims (2-16) further state using obtained data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature – as shown above), data/information analysis and manipulation to determine more abstract information/data (grouping data/information, comparing information, scoring, calculations, assessments of information from documents), and providing/displaying this determined data for further analysis and decision-making (assessments for risk and compliance purposes). The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further data (scoring, calculating values, ranking, etc.,). These dependent claims are directed towards covers methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (documents review and assessment in business/industry/commercial relations (see Applicant’s specification para. 0022-0023 – legal, medical, company reporting, government policies))), mental activities (cover the performance of the limitation as concepts performed in the human mind – observation, assessment and evaluation from text in documents)), and mathematical concepts (using mathematical techniques and using the results of the techniques – see above). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above) performing generic computer/computing/technology functions. (MPEP 2106.04 and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The additional elements (see list/listing above) 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. The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements. Also, the dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the juridical exception because the additional elements (see list/listing above) either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself. See detailed rejection above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 1-8 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey et al., (US 2018/0173698) in view of Privault et al., (US 2010/0312725).
As per claim 1, Dubey discloses a method comprising:
receiving a plurality of documents (¶¶ 0023 [collect…documents], 0029, 0035 [documents received]);
filtering documents (¶¶ 0116-0119 [filter documents], 0021, 0024);
extracting, from each document of said batch, unstructured text (¶¶ 0023 [documents…free form text], 0030 [documents…include…unstructured text (free-form text, etc.,)], 0037 [documents…include…unstructured data…text]);
extracting, from said extracted unstructured text, a plurality of text segments (¶¶ 0023-0026 [collecting documents and extracting text where text segments are tagged and analyzed]);
labelling and/or mapping one or more of said plurality of text segments to one or more requirements from a set of requirements configured for an assessment (¶¶ 0024-0025 [knowledge base…text segment…tagged with classes…ontology…matching criteria…performance], 0027 [mapping…ontologies…mapping portions of a parse tree of the text to respective classes of a model], 0069 [mapping module; see with 0005-0006 [test segment…mapped]], 0087-0093 [discusses conditions; text segments…condition…class…applied to text segment(s) (class can correspond to words or phrases that represent confidence of the user regarding an entity, condition, or emotion represented in the free-form user text)]; see also 0074 [labels], 0083 [with 0087-0093 [discusses conditions; text segments…condition…class…applied to text segment(s) (class can correspond to words or phrases that represent confidence of the user regarding an entity, condition, or emotion represented in the free-form user text)]], 0106);
evaluating whether said labelled and/or mapped text segments satisfy a minimum requirement threshold associated with said set of requirements for said assessment (see citations above in addition to ¶¶ 0141-0142 [text segments…map…criteria…compare…criteria to a predetermined threshold… greater than the predetermined threshold; with 0004-0005 [text segment…criteria…threshold]], 0134-0135 [scores…above…threshold]); and
when said minimum requirement threshold is satisfied, determine assessment scores for each requirement in said set of requirements for said assessment (see citations above in addition to ¶¶ 0141-0142 [text segments…map…criteria…compare…criteria to a predetermined threshold… greater than the predetermined threshold…probability, value…score; with 0134-0135 [scores…above…threshold], 0139, 0142]).
Although Dubey discloses filtering and classifying documents (see citations above), Dubey does not specifically state defining a batch comprising a subset of said plurality of documents.
Analogous art Privault discloses defining a batch comprising a subset of said plurality of documents (for example, see ¶ 0076 [document collection…batch…clustering on a subset and classify…documents…samples of documents…subset of the collection]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Dubey defining a batch comprising a subset of said plurality of documents as taught by analogous art Privault in order to efficiently and accurately process documents and the information in the documents since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (KSR-G/TSM); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Privault (batching processing documents and using subsets of documents is old and well-known concept) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 17, claim 17 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 1 above; and therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 1.
As per claim 18, claim 18 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 1 above; and therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 1.
As per claim 2, Dubey discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein said assessment is one of a compliance assessment and a risk assessment.
Analogous art Privault discloses compliance assessment and a risk assessment (for example, see ¶ 0042 [risk considerations…reviewing…review process], 0102 [balance…risk], 0103 [reviews…ensure compliance]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Dubey compliance assessment and a risk assessment as taught by analogous art Privault since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function (the references would not alter each other) as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (KSR-A) and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Privault (risk analysis/assessment and compliance assessment is old and well-known concepts) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 3, Dubey discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said plurality of documents comprise one or more product and/or vendor documents (¶¶ 0023-0026 [provider…documents…user feedback…customer…product…analyze document…users judge (feedback)…quality of the product or service], 0037, 0073 [document… document having any type of content including text…product reviews]).
As per claim 4, Dubey discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said set of requirements is a first set of requirements, and wherein said labelling and/or mapping comprises labelling and/or mapping said one or more text segments to a second set of requirements configured for said assessment (see citations in claim 1 above and also see ¶¶ 0024-0025 [knowledge base…text segment…tagged with classes…ontology…matching criteria…performance], 0027 [mapping…ontologies…mapping portions of a parse tree of the text to respective classes of a model], 0069 [mapping module; see with 0005-0006 [test segment…mapped]], 0087-0093 [discusses conditions; text segments…condition…class…applied to text segment(s) (class can correspond to words or phrases that represent confidence of the user regarding an entity, condition, or emotion represented in the free-form user text)]; see also 0074 [labels], 0083 [with 0087-0093 [discusses conditions; text segments…condition…class…applied to text segment(s) (class can correspond to words or phrases that represent confidence of the user regarding an entity, condition, or emotion represented in the free-form user text)]], 0146 [multi-dimensional information criteria associated with the class…multi-dimensional information criteria associated with the class and a confidence value indicating a level of confidence associated with the probability, value, and/or multi-dimensional information criteria and/or the class may be required to be above a predetermined threshold for the particular text segment to be mapped to the entry]).
As per claim 5, Dubey discloses the method of claim 4, wherein said labelling and/or mapping of said first and second sets of requirements is performed in parallel (see citations in claims 1 and 4 above and also see ¶¶ 0190 [operations…in parallel to implement each process; with 0191-0194 [showing the performance happening in parallel – with mapping module]], 0110-0112 [mapping…processing steps…performed…in parallel…data structure or computational model mapping individual words or phrases of the free-form user text of the respective document to individual classes of a model such as the ontology]).
As per claim 6, Dubey discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said labelling and/or mapping of said first set of requirements is performed in parallel for each of said requirements of said set of requirements (see citations in claims 1 and 4 above and also see ¶¶ 0190 [operations…in parallel to implement each process; with 0191-0194 [showing the performance happening in parallel – with mapping module]], 0110-0112 [mapping…processing steps…performed…in parallel…data structure or computational model mapping individual words or phrases of the free-form user text of the respective document to individual classes of a model such as the ontology]).
As per claim 7, Dubey discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising labelling and/or mapping said plurality of text segments to a set of requirements configured for a second assessment distinct from said first assessment (see citations above for claim 1 and also see ¶¶ 0122 [example of multiple distinct assessments/analysis], 0137-0140 [shows multiple distinct assessments/analysis occurring], 0153-015 [shows multiple distinct assessments/analysis occurring – analysis module…identify motifs…identify actionable items…grammar pattern…recommendation…problem motif, a suggestion motif, a question motif, or other motif that can require attention of a user (multiple assessments/analysis)], 0155-0164 [analysis module can determine that a tag sentence matching any grammar pattern in the pattern set… the analysis module 634 or other component(s) of the computing device 616 are configured to identify set(s) of one or more of the mapped words or phrases…the analysis module 634 is configured to query the dictionary 606 using one(s) of the words or phrases from the phrase-filtering module…the analysis module 634 is configured to process the tagged text of the documents to identify valid interactions according to the ontology (multiple assessments that are distinct from each other)]).
As per claim 8, Dubey discloses the method of claim 7, wherein said labelling and/or mapping of said text segments is performed in parallel for said first assessment and for said second assessment (see citations in claims 1 and 4 above and also see ¶¶ 0190 [operations…in parallel to implement each process; with 0191-0194 [showing the performance happening in parallel – with mapping module]], 0110-0112 [mapping…processing steps…performed…in parallel…data structure or computational model mapping individual words or phrases of the free-form user text of the respective document to individual classes of a model such as the ontology]).
As per claim 12, Dubey discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said set of requirements corresponds to a policy document (see citations above for claim 1 and also see, for example, ¶¶ 0146 [policies…criteria], 0172 [set of rules], 0178, 0205-0206).
As per claim 13, Dubey discloses the method of claim 12, wherein said policy document is one of data in transit, data at rest, network, and physical security requirements (¶¶ 0040 [networks...protocols (policy)], 0178 [shows example of data in transit – actionable item includes a ranking of the actionable items , e.g., based on selected ranking criteria…a first actionable item, e.g., a first user suggestion, is ranked higher than a second actionable item, e.g., a second user suggestion, when the first actionable item occurs more frequently in the plurality of documents than does the second actionable item…an actionable item includes a ranking determined based at least in part upon ranking criteria that can include at least some of: pre-defined knowledge, specific top-k actionable items], 0141 [neural network or other classifier can output a set of probabilities, set of values, and/or set of multi-dimensional information criteria over a plurality of classes associated with the model], 0146 [dictionary can be updated based on policies – e.g. of data at rest], 0025 [security…rule-based systems], 0108-0110 [security]).
As per claim 14, Dubey discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said determining assessment scores comprises applying a plurality of preconfigured rules to calculate a score for each requirement of said set of requirements (¶¶ 0141-0142 [text segments…map…criteria…compare…criteria to a predetermined threshold… greater than the predetermined threshold…probability, value…score; with 0134-0135 [scores…above…threshold], 0134-0139, 0142]).
As per claim 15, Dubey discloses the method of claim 14, wherein each of said requirements comprises a weighting, and said method further comprises determining an overall score for said assessment based on a weighted combination of said scores for each of said requirements (see citations above for claims 1-3 and 14, and in addition see ¶¶ 0026 [ranking…criteria…relevance…importance], 0121, 0139-0146 [identification of which of the Justeson-Katz patterns a phrase matches, spatial relationships between words in a phrase, context(s) in which a phrase can occur (e.g., before or after a verb), stems of word(s), e.g., in a phrase (e.g., “run” for “running”), synonyms of word(s), e.g., in a phrase, order of selected words in a phrase, e.g., words considered to be important based on, e.g., RIDF or MI scores, or distances between ones of the selected words…output a confidence value…confidence value can indicate a level of confidence], 0146 [confidence value indicating a level of confidence associated with the probability, value, and/or multi-dimensional information criteria], 0172 [precedence table…value indicative of a level of importance; see with 0178 and 210]; see also 0255-0257).
As per claim 16, Dubey discloses the method of claim 14, wherein for at least one requirement of said set of requirements, a plurality of distinct algorithms are applied to determine a plurality of scores for said respective requirement, and said score for said requirement is based on an ensemble of said plurality of scores determined based on said plurality of distinct algorithms (see citations above for claims 1-3 and 14, and in addition see ¶¶ 0026 [ranking…criteria…relevance…importance], 0121, 0139-0146 [identification of which of the Justeson-Katz patterns a phrase matches, spatial relationships between words in a phrase, context(s) in which a phrase can occur (e.g., before or after a verb), stems of word(s), e.g., in a phrase (e.g., “run” for “running”), synonyms of word(s), e.g., in a phrase, order of selected words in a phrase, e.g., words considered to be important based on, e.g., RIDF or MI scores, or distances between ones of the selected words…output a confidence value…confidence value can indicate a level of confidence], 0146 [confidence value indicating a level of confidence associated with the probability, value, and/or multi-dimensional information criteria], 0172 [precedence table…value indicative of a level of importance; see with 0178-0180 [showing distinct algorithms] and 210]; see also 0255-0257 [with 0118-0119]).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey et al., (US 2018/0173698) in view of Privault et al., (US 2010/0312725), further in view of Lim et al., (US 2018/0048464).
As per claim 9, Dubey discloses the method of claim 1, but Dubey does not explicitly state further comprising generating a unique identifier for said batch, wherein said unique identifier comprises at least one of a universally unique ID (UUID) and a composite key, said composite key comprising at least a batch checksum and a date and time of creation of said batch.
Analogous art Privault discloses defining and creating a batch and subset of said plurality of documents (for example, see ¶ 0076 [document collection…batch…clustering on a subset and classify…documents…samples of documents…subset of the collection]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Dubey defining a batch comprising a subset of said plurality of documents as taught by analogous art Privault in order to efficiently and accurately process documents and the information in the documents since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (KSR-G/TSM); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Privault (batching processing documents and using subsets of documents is old and well-known concept) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Neither Dubey nor Privault disclose unique identifier and where the unique identifiers comprises at least one of a universally unique ID (UUID) and a composite key, said composite key comprising at least a checksum and a date and time.
Analogous art Lim discloses unique identifier and where the unique identifiers comprises at least one of a universally unique ID (UUID) and a composite key, said composite key comprising at least a checksum and a date and time ((and note that checksum is a portion of string of letters/numbers) ¶¶ 0079-0082 [string…universally unique identifier (or UUID) …value…hash algorithm…document…identifier…time…created…checksum…digital signature…key created; see with 0085 [key management…identifier may be an integer, a string, a universally unique identifier, a cryptographic key, a cryptographic hash, a digital certificate, an object with one or more data elements, a block of binary data, or others], 0134 [key attributes…date…time…document]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Dubey in view of Privault defining a batch comprising a subset of said plurality of documents as taught by analogous art Lim in order to distinguish between documents and more efficient automation and security since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (KSR-G/TSM); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Lim would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 10, Dubey discloses the method of claim 9, but Dubey does not explicitly state wherein each of said documents included in said batch includes a checksum value, and wherein said batch checksum is calculated based on said checksums of each document.
Analogous art Privault discloses defining and creating a batch and subset of said plurality of documents (for example, see ¶ 0076 [document collection…batch…clustering on a subset and classify…documents…samples of documents…subset of the collection]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Dubey defining a batch comprising a subset of said plurality of documents as taught by analogous art Privault in order to efficiently and accurately process documents and the information in the documents since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (KSR-G/TSM); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Privault (batching processing documents and using subsets of documents is old and well-known concept) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
However, neither Dubey nor Privault disclose each of said documents includes a checksum value, and wherein said batch checksum is calculated based on said checksums of each document.
Analogous art Lim discloses each of said documents includes a checksum value, and wherein said batch checksum is calculated based on said checksums of each document (see citations above (and note that checksum is a portion of string of letters/numbers) and also see ¶¶ 0079-0082 [string…universally unique identifier (or UUID)…value…hash algorithm…document…identifier…time…created…checksum of the document…digital signature…key created; see with 0085 [key management…identifier may be an integer, a string, a universally unique identifier, a cryptographic key, a cryptographic hash, a digital certificate, an object with one or more data elements, a block of binary data, or others], 0134 [key attributes…date…time…document]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Dubey in view of Privault defining a batch comprising a subset of said plurality of documents as taught by analogous art Lim in order to distinguish between documents and more efficient automation and security since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (KSR-G/TSM); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Lim would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 11, Dubey discloses the method of claim 10, but Dubey does not state wherein said batch checksum is calculated by concatenating said checksum of each document and creating a checksum of the concatenated checksum string.
Analogous art Privault discloses defining and creating a batch and subset of said plurality of documents (for example, see ¶ 0076 [document collection…batch…clustering on a subset and classify…documents…samples of documents…subset of the collection]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Dubey defining a batch comprising a subset of said plurality of documents as taught by analogous art Privault in order to efficiently and accurately process documents and the information in the documents since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (KSR-G/TSM); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Privault (batching processing documents and using subsets of documents is old and well-known concept) would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
However, neither Dubey nor Privault disclose checksum is calculated by concatenating said checksum of each document and creating a checksum of the concatenated checksum string.
Analogous art Lim discloses checksum is calculated by concatenating said checksum of each document and creating a checksum of the concatenated checksum string (see citations above (and note that checksum is a portion of string of letters/numbers and “concatenate” means linking together) for claim 9-10 and see with ¶¶ 0079-0082 [see with 0086 [seed token…string], 0091-0094 [layout (linked)… file header and encrypted content…includes a document identifier, a user identifier and a seed token… additional sections such as document attributes, search index, policies (or rules) for controlling access or use…file header…include (linked) data such as expiration date, export control information, owner, author, organization identifier, group identifier, device identifier key management server identifier, seed token, retention data]]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Dubey in view of Privault disclose checksum is calculated by concatenating said checksum of each document and creating a checksum of the concatenated checksum string as taught by analogous art Lim in order for more efficient automation and security since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (KSR-G/TSM); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Lim would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141; and also see (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
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:
Wheaton et al., (US 2021/0110527): Directed to techniques for extracting contextually structured data from document images, such as by automatically identifying document layout, document data, and/or document metadata in a document image, for instance. Many embodiments are particularly directed to generating and utilizing a document template database for automatically extracting document image contents into a contextually structured format. For example, the document template database may include a plurality of templates for identifying/explaining key data elements in various document image formats that can be used to extract contextually structured data from incoming document images with a matching document image format. Several embodiments are particularly directed to automatically identifying and associating document metadata with corresponding document data in a document image, such as for generating a machine-facilitated annotation of the document image. In some embodiments, the machine-facilitated annotation of a document may be used to generate a template for the template database.
Lucas et al., (US 11,532,397): Discusses a document classifier may process the OCR output of the electronic document capture to recognize document identifiers which are linked to features of the document stored in a predefined model for each document. Predefined models may also be referred to as predetermined models. Document identifiers may include Form numbers (such as Form CA217b, Patient Report Rev 0.17, AB12937, etc.) indicating a specific version of a document which provides key health information in each of the respective document's features. Features of a document may include headers, columns, tables, graphs, and other standard forms which appear in the document.
Bayomi et al., (US 2023/0145463): Provides for performing natural language processing (NLP) operations on multi-segment documents. For example, certain embodiments of the present invention utilize systems, methods, and computer program products that perform NLP operations on multi-segment documents by generating document segmentation machine learning models, using document segmentation machine learning models to determine document segments of input multi-segment documents, enabling adaptive multi-segment summarization of multi-segment documents, and enabling guided interaction with multi-segment documents.
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