DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “natural language processing module” in claims 1 and 11; “AI module” in claims 1, 6, and 11; “authentication module” in claims 4-5; “module for verifying” in claim 9; and “cloud storage system” in claims 1 and 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 1-14, these claims have indefiniteness rejections for invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/sixth paragraph but the application failing to disclose corresponding structure(s), material(s) or act(s) that performs the entire claimed corresponding function(s). MPEP 2181(IV) states: “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under section 112(a). See MPEP § 2163.03, subsection VI.” Therefore, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, written description requirement. For details on Examiner’s search for the algorithms at issue, and the closest disclosures that Examiner found to providing the algorithms, see the indefiniteness rejections, elsewhere in this Office action.
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.
Claims 1-14 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 per claims 1 and 11, claim limitation “natural language processing module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
MPEP 2181(II)(B) states:
For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.
For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the Federal Circuit has stated that "a microprocessor can serve as structure for a computer-implemented function only where the claimed function is ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor itself." EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 622, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1714 (Fed. Cir. 2015), citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "‘It is only in the rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed.’" EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 621, 114 USPQ2 at 1714, quoting Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365, 102 USPQ2d 1122, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2012). "‘[S]pecial programming’ includes any functionality that is not ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor or general purpose computer." EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 623, 114 USPQ2d at 1715 (citations omitted). "Examples of such coextensive functions are ‘receiving’ data, ‘storing’ data, and ‘processing’ data—the only three functions on which the Katz court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for the district court to determine whether disclosure of a microprocessor was sufficient." 785 F.3d at 622, 114 USPQ2d at 1714. Thus, "[a] microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm." Id., 114 USPQ2d at 1714
The corresponding function for the natural language processing module in claim 1 is receive and process a voice command from the mobile application, converting a spoken language into an interpretable command. The corresponding function for the natural language processing module in claim 11 is processing the voice command to interpret the command. Even if credit is given for a generic computing system structure for performing such functions being disclosed in Applicant’s specification, this would not be sufficient because the functions here are not coextensive with the functions of a generic computing system. Thus, the specification must also disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer functions.
As part of reviewing Applicant’s specification for such algorithm(s), Examiner performed text-string searches for “natural”, “language”, “voice”, “command”, “vocal”, “oral”, “speak”, “spoke”, “free”, and “interpret”. Examiner did not find disclosure of an algorithm(s) for performing the above functions of the natural language processing module. The closest portions of the specification that Examiner found to providing such disclosure were Applicant’s specification-as-originally-filed, paragraphs [0031] and [0042]. However, these paragraphs together still merely disclose the natural language processing module and corresponding functions, but do not disclose the algorithm(s) for performing the natural language processing module’s functions.
As stated in MPEP 2181(II)(B): “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).” Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
As per claims 1, 6, and 11, claim limitation “AI module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The corresponding function for the AI module in claim 1 is train from a past user interaction and use the legal database to provide a real-time legal advice in response to a user request. The corresponding function for the AI module in claim 6 is generate a real-time legal tip and a recommendation based on a user input. The corresponding function for the AI module in claim 11 is generating a customized legal response based on the queried legal database and user-specific data. Even if credit is given for a generic computing system structure for performing such functions being disclosed in Applicant’s specification, this would not be sufficient because the functions here are not coextensive with the functions of a generic computing system. Thus, the specification must also disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer functions.
As part of reviewing Applicant’s specification for such algorithm(s), Examiner performed text-string searches for “AI”, “artificial”, “intelligence”, “machine”, “learn”, “neural”, “network”, “train”, “advice”, “assistance”, “aid”, “tip”, “recommend”, “suggest”, and “respon”. Examiner did not find disclosure of an algorithm(s) for performing the above functions of the AI module. The closest portion of the specification that Examiner found to providing such disclosure was Applicant’s specification-as-originally-filed, paragraph [0032]. However, this paragraph still merely discloses that the AI module is trained on particular data, but does not disclose the algorithm(s) for performing the AI module’s functions.
As stated in MPEP 2181(II)(B): “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).” Therefore, claims 1, 6, and 11 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Additional information on this type of rejection is found in the indefiniteness rejections for the “natural language processing module,” above in this Office action.
As per claims 4-5, claim limitation “authentication module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The corresponding function for the authentication module in claim 4 is authorize a user based on an information stored in a user profile database. The corresponding function for the authentication module in claim 5 is manage a user subscription. Even if credit is given for a generic computing system structure for performing such functions being disclosed in Applicant’s specification, this would not be sufficient because the functions here are not coextensive with the functions of a generic computing system. Thus, the specification must also disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer functions.
As part of reviewing Applicant’s specification for such algorithm(s), Examiner performed text-string searches for “authentic”, “authori”, “verif”, “confirm”, “valid”, “profil”, “subscri”, “member”, “regist”, “account”, and “pass”. Examiner did not find disclosure of an algorithm(s) for performing the above functions of the authentication module. The closest portion of the specification that Examiner found to providing such disclosure was Applicant’s specification-as-originally-filed, paragraph [0032]. However, this paragraph still merely discloses functions of the authentication module, but does not disclose the algorithm(s) for performing the authentication module’s functions.
As stated in MPEP 2181(II)(B): “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).” Therefore, claims 4-5 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Additional information on this type of rejection is found in the indefiniteness rejections for the “natural language processing module,” above in this Office action.
As per claim 9, claim limitation “module for verifying” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The corresponding function for the module for verifying in claim 9 is verifying a personal legal documents stored by the user in the legal database. Even if credit is given for a generic computing system structure for performing such function being disclosed in Applicant’s specification, this would not be sufficient because the function here is not coextensive with the functions of a generic computing system. Thus, the specification must also disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function.
As part of reviewing Applicant’s specification for such algorithm(s), Examiner performed text-string searches for “verif”, “authentic”, “confirm”, “valid”, and “document”. Examiner did not find disclosure of an algorithm(s) for performing the above function of the module for verifying. The closest portion of the specification that Examiner found to providing such disclosure was Applicant’s specification-as-originally-filed, paragraph [0036]. However, this paragraph still merely discloses functions of the module for verifying, but does not disclose the algorithm(s) for performing the module for verifying’s function.
As stated in MPEP 2181(II)(B): “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).” Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Additional information on this type of rejection is found in the indefiniteness rejections for the “natural language processing module,” above in this Office action.
As per claims 2-10 and 12-14, these claims depend from claims with indefiniteness issues and do not remedy the indefiniteness issues of the claims from which they depend. Therefore, claims 2-10 and 12-14 are indefinite for these reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1, Claim(s) 1 recite(s):
- legal counsel;
- legal information, a statute, and a case law;
- train from a past user interaction and use the legal information, the statute, and the case law to provide a legal advice in response to a user request;
- a user data including a legal advice, a recording of police encounters, and a personal information.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): provides legal assistance;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): helps user manage user behavior in a legal situation; manages interactions between legal service consumers, police, and/or potentially others, each of which may involve humans.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- an AI-based system; a mobile application configured to communicate with a server system via a communication network; a natural language processing module located on the server system, the natural language processing module configured to receive and process a voice command, converting a spoken language into an interpretable command; a database stored on the server system, the database comprised of a repository; an AI module located on the server system, the AI module configured; real-time; a cloud storage system configured to store; encrypted: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2-10, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- a user interface configured (claim 2);
- a text input (claim 2);
- a recording feature that records an audio or a video (claim 3);
- an authentication module (claims 4-5);
- another database (claim 4);
- a user input (claim 6);
- uploaded (claim 7);
- automatically (claims 7 and 10);
- a visual representation (claim 8);
- a voice input (claim 8);
- another module (claim 9);
- data storage (claim 9);
- a security feature (claim 10);
- encrypts (claim 10);
- communications (claim 10).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, the remaining added portion of claim 6 merely specifies further information that is generated.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 1-10 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Claim(s) 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 11, Claim(s) 11 recite(s):
- legal counsel;
- receiving a user request;
- querying legal information in response to a command, the legal information comprised of a statute, a case law, and a legal guidelines;
- generating a customized legal response based on the queried legal information and a user-specific data;
- providing the customized legal response to the user.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): provides legal assistance;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): helps user manage user behavior in a legal situation; manages interactions between legal service consumers, police, and/or potentially others, each of which may involve humans.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- using an AI-based system; a mobile application installed on an electronic computing device; receiving a voice command; processing the voice command using a natural language processing module to interpret the command; a database stored on a server system; using an AI module; outputting through the mobile application: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 12-14, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- updating the database (claim 12);
- real-time (claim 12);
- retrieving from a database (claim 13);
- another database (claim 13).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 14 merely adds informational detail as to how the customized legal response is generated.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 11-14 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Claim(s) 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 15, Claim(s) 15 recite(s):
- legal counsel;
- receiving a user request for a legal assistance;
- locating an available lawyer based on a user's location, a legal expertise, and an availability;
- matching the user with a selected lawyer and providing an update on the selected lawyer's status;
- outputting a relevant information about the user and a user's legal situation to the selected lawyer to enable informed legal support.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): provides legal assistance; matches client to lawyer, which may set up a commercial transaction;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): helps user manage user behavior in a legal situation; manages interactions between legal service consumers, lawyers, police, and/or potentially others, each of which may involve humans.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- using an AI-based system; a mobile application installed on a user's electronic computing device; real-time; outputting data through the mobile application; outputting via transmitting: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 16-20, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- outputting via displaying (claim 16);
- outputting via the mobile application (claim 18);
- initiating a communication via phone, text, or video call through the mobile application (claim 19).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, the remaining added portion of claim 17 merely further specifies the update data content.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 15-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Njie, US 20250014129 A1, in view of Redmon, US 20220044339 A1, in further view of Kemp, US 20040024775 A1.
As per Claim 1, Njie discloses:
- an AI-based legal counsel system (paragraph [0031] (“As described herein, the geospatial data can be used as an input in conjunction with the legal information database 160. For instance, acquired geographic coordinates can serve as a query parameter for the legal information database 160. This query can enable the mitigation system 100 to fetch the jurisdiction-specific legal information in accordance with the vehicle's current location. In some cases, this process equips the driver with legal information that is relevant and accurate, as per their current geospatial context and potential law enforcement interactions.”); paragraph [0041] (“Upon recognition, the audio processing system 140 can fetch pertinent legal information from the legal information database 160. This information, which can include penalties for or requirements of the mentioned violation within the current jurisdiction, can then be displayed to the driver. By maintaining this level of dynamic update, the audio processing system 140 can ensure the driver is equipped with the most relevant and accurate legal information as the law enforcement interaction unfolds.”); paragraph [0063] (“FIG. 5A is a diagram illustrating an example of training an advanced language model 500, in accordance with the present disclosure. The advanced training language 500 may represent various forms of artificial intelligence techniques, including but not limited to generative AI models, machine learning models, or Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT)-like technologies.”); paragraph [0120] (systems));
- a mobile application configured to communicate with a server system via a communication network (paragraph [0025] (“The mitigation system can include a display interface within the vehicle or on a mobile communication device.”); paragraph [0033] (“In some cases, the actions include activating a mitigation app running on a mobile device.”); paragraph [0052] (“This camera can be focused on the driver's seat, passenger seats, and/or rear seats, capturing interactions between the driver, passengers, and law enforcement officers during an interaction. In some scenarios, a camera 212 and/or microphone 214 of a mobile device 220 (e.g., a driver's cell phone), can be employed (e.g., to supplement the captured data).”); paragraph [0063] (“The advanced language model 500 may include or may be included in a computing device, a server, a cloud computing environment, or the like, such as the mitigation system 100 described herein.”); paragraph [0110] (“At block 712, the mitigation system 100 causes a display interface within the vehicle or on a mobile communication device to present jurisdiction-specific legal information and a communication channel with the legal aid professional or the contacts.”); paragraph [0120] (“Software and other modules may reside and execute on servers, workstations, personal computers, computerized tablets, PDAs, and other computing devices suitable for the purposes described herein.”); paragraph [0121] (“In this context, a remote distributed computing system or cloud-based service can refer to a service hosted by one more computing resources that are accessible to end users over a network, for example, by using a web browser or other application on a client device to interface with the remote computing resources.”));
- a natural language processing module located on the server system, the natural language processing module configured to receive and process a voice command from the mobile application, converting a spoken language into an interpretable command (paragraph [0035] (“In certain implementations, the recording devices 130 can also extend to incorporate the cameras and microphones on the driver's or other users' mobile devices.”); paragraph [0039] (“The audio processing system 140 can leverage the recording devices 130, or, in some cases, it can tap into the driver's mobile device's audio input, given necessary permissions, to effectively capture audio data.”); paragraph [0040] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0041] (whole paragraph]); paragraph [0053] (“The audio capture devices can be positioned to capture conversations within and/or outside the vehicle.”); paragraph [0063] (“The advanced language model 500 may include or may be included in a computing device, a server, a cloud computing environment, or the like, such as the mitigation system 100 described herein.”); paragraph [0067] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0106] (“For example, the integrated cameras can record the actions of both the driver and the law enforcement officer, while the audio capture device records their conversation.”));
- a legal database stored on the server system, the legal database comprised of a repository of legal information (paragraph [0026] (mitigation system 100 includes legal information database 160); paragraph [0031] (“For instance, acquired geographic coordinates can serve as a query parameter for the legal information database 160. This query can enable the mitigation system 100 to fetch the jurisdiction-specific legal information in accordance with the vehicle's current location. In some cases, this process equips the driver with legal information that is relevant and accurate, as per their current geospatial context and potential law enforcement interactions.”); paragraph [0041] (“Upon recognition, the audio processing system 140 can fetch pertinent legal information from the legal information database 160. This information, which can include penalties for or requirements of the mentioned violation within the current jurisdiction, can then be displayed to the driver. By maintaining this level of dynamic update, the audio processing system 140 can ensure the driver is equipped with the most relevant and accurate legal information as the law enforcement interaction unfolds.”); paragraphs [0045]-[0047] (legal information database 160); paragraph [0120] (“Systems and modules described herein may comprise software, firmware, hardware, or any combination(s) of software, firmware, or hardware suitable for the purposes described. Software and other modules may reside and execute on servers, workstations, personal computers, computerized tablets, PDAs, and other computing devices suitable for the purposes described herein.”));
- an AI module located on the server system, the AI module configured to train from a past user interaction and use the legal database to provide a real-time legal advice in response to a user request (paragraph [0007] (much of paragraph); paragraph [0023] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0031] (“For instance, acquired geographic coordinates can serve as a query parameter for the legal information database 160. This query can enable the mitigation system 100 to fetch the jurisdiction-specific legal information in accordance with the vehicle's current location. In some cases, this process equips the driver with legal information that is relevant and accurate, as per their current geospatial context and potential law enforcement interactions.”); paragraph [0040] (much of paragraph); paragraph [0041] (“Upon recognition, the audio processing system 140 can fetch pertinent legal information from the legal information database 160. This information, which can include penalties for or requirements of the mentioned violation within the current jurisdiction, can then be displayed to the driver. By maintaining this level of dynamic update, the audio processing system 140 can ensure the driver is equipped with the most relevant and accurate legal information as the law enforcement interaction unfolds.”); paragraphs [0081]-[0082] (most of these paragraphs); paragraphs [0083]-[0084] (most of these paragraphs); paragraph [0089] (“The advanced language model 500 enables recognition and/or identification of tens, hundreds, thousands, or millions of features and/or feature values for tens, hundreds, thousands, or millions of observations, thereby increasing accuracy and consistency and reducing delay associated with delivering personalized, real-time legal advice.”));
- a cloud storage system configured to store user data including a recording of police encounters (paragraph [0037] (whole paragraph)).
Njie fails to disclose wherein the user data is encrypted; wherein the stored user data includes a personal information. Redmon discloses wherein the user data is encrypted (paragraph [0013] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0014] (“All of the captured live-stream video data (including audio) are transmitted (using cellular/Internet connectivity of the mobile device, the camera, or the vehicle) via a global computer network (Internet) and/or cellular mobile telephone network 14 to a remote server 16 and stored in a database 18, preferably encrypted to ensure privacy.”)); wherein the stored user data includes a personal information (paragraph [0015] (“In operation, the user may initialize the Mobile Lawyer App 22 by setting up a profile with the name, address, phone number, age, sex, race, emergency contact, medical information, and other basic information.”); paragraph [0027] (much of paragraph)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Njie such that the user data is encrypted; and the stored user data includes a personal information, as disclosed by Redmon, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The modified Njie fails to disclose wherein the legal database is comprised of a repository of a statute and a case law; wherein the stored user data includes a legal advice. Kemp discloses wherein the legal database is comprised of a repository of a statute and a case law (paragraph [0008] (“For example, where information related to a legal topic such as "securities" or "corporate" law is requested, and the responsive information is classified into types, including for example judicial decisions, statutes, administrative rules, and administrative decisions, a separate window is presented for each classification: one for judicial decisions, one for statutes, etc.”); paragraph [0035] (“Sources 170 can include, for example, various reporters or other gatherers of legal news and information, including newly-decided court decisions, reports of court cases, new codifications of statutes, rules, and the like, and other legal, business, professional, and/or news information. Preferably sources 170 provide information to provider 101 via network 102 in a standard format, easily and rapidly useable by provider 101, according to a protocol established by or agreed to by provider 101. Information provided by sources 170 to provider 101 is processed as required and stored in databases 121, and made available to requesting clients at user systems 150, each of which comprises a number of user-accessible terminals 106.”)); wherein the stored user data includes a legal advice (Figure 2; paragraph [0006] (“For example, the invention provides systems, methods, and computer programs and program products for fulfilling requests from users of current awareness systems for information related to legal topics designated by the requesters from a list of available legal topics.”); paragraph [0055] (“Optionally user 150, 106, stores received information via user archive process 232.”)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Njie such that the legal database is comprised of a repository of a statute and a case law; and the stored user data includes a legal advice, as disclosed by Kemp, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 2, Njie further discloses wherein the mobile application is comprised of a user interface configured to allow the user to search for a legal information using a voice command (paragraph [0007]; paragraph [0031]; paragraph [0035]; paragraph [0039]; paragraph [0040]; paragraph [0041]; paragraph [0053]; paragraph [0081]; paragraphs [0083]-[0084]; paragraph [0089]; paragraph [0106]).
As per Claim 3, Njie further discloses wherein the mobile application is comprised of a recording feature that records an audio or a video (paragraph [0033]; paragraph [0035]; paragraph [0039]; paragraph [0052]; paragraph [0054]; paragraph [0121]).
As per Claim 4, the modified Njie fails to disclose an authentication module configured to authorize a user based on an information stored in a user profile database. Redmon further discloses an authentication module configured to authorize a user based on an information stored in a user profile database (paragraph [0015]; paragraph [0025]; paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Njie such that the invention includes an authentication module configured to authorize a user based on an information stored in a user profile database, as disclosed by Redmon, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 5, the modified Njie fails to disclose wherein the authentication module is further configured to manage a user subscription. Redmon further discloses wherein the authentication module is further configured to manage a user subscription (paragraph [0015]; paragraph [0025]; paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Njie such that the authentication module is further configured to manage a user subscription, as disclosed by Redmon, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 6, Njie further discloses wherein the AI module is configured to generate a real-time legal tip and a recommendation based on a user input (paragraph [0007]; paragraph [0023]; paragraph [0031]; paragraph [0040]; paragraph [0041]; paragraphs [0081]-[0082]; paragraphs [0083]-[0084]; paragraph [0089]).
As per Claim 7, Njie further discloses wherein the cloud storage system is configured to store recordings of a police interaction, which is uploaded automatically to the cloud storage system when the mobile application detects a police encounter (paragraph [0024]; paragraph [0036]; paragraph [0037]; paragraph [0054]; paragraph [0058]; paragraph [0059]; paragraph [0070]; paragraph [0084]; paragraph [0102]; paragraph [0106]; paragraphs [0121]-[0122]).
The modified Njie fails to disclose wherein the recordings of a police interaction is encrypted. Redmon further discloses wherein the recordings of a police interaction is encrypted (paragraph [0012]; paragraph [0013]; paragraph [0014]; paragraph [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Njie such that the recordings of a police interaction is encrypted, as disclosed by Redmon, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Njie in view of Redmon in further view of Kemp in further view of Liu, US 20210266274 A1.
As per Claim 8, the modified Njie fails to disclose wherein the mobile application provides a visual representation of a voice input. Liu discloses wherein the mobile application provides a visual representation of a voice input (Figure 1; paragraph [0026]; paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Njie such that the mobile application provides a visual representation of a voice input, as disclosed by Liu, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Njie in view of Redmon in further view of Kemp in further view of Englehardt, US 20160034709 A1.
As per Claim 9, the modified Njie fails to disclose a module for verifying a personal legal documents stored by the user in the legal database. Englehardt discloses a module for verifying a personal legal documents stored by the user in the legal database (paragraph [0022]; paragraph [0074]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Njie such that the invention includes a module for verifying a personal legal documents stored by the user in the legal database, as disclosed by Englehardt, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Njie in view of Redmon in further view of Kemp in further view of Lusk, US 20050097440 A1.
As per Claim 10, the modified Njie fails to disclose a security feature that automatically encrypts all communications between the mobile application and the server system. Lusk discloses a security feature that automatically encrypts all communications between the mobile application and the server system (paragraph [0066]; paragraph [0146]; paragraph [0181]; paragraph [0187]; paragraph [0239]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Njie such that the invention includes a security feature that automatically encrypts all communications between the mobile application and the server system, as disclosed by Lusk, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Njie in view of Kemp in further view of Stevenson, US 20030028477 A1.
As per Claim 11, Njie discloses:
- a method of using an AI-based legal counsel system (paragraph [0006] (methods); paragraph [0031] (“As described herein, the geospatial data can be used as an input in conjunction with the legal information database 160. For instance, acquired geographic coordinates can serve as a query parameter for the legal information database 160. This query can enable the mitigation system 100 to fetch the jurisdiction-specific legal information in accordance with the vehicle's current location. In some cases, this process equips the driver with legal information that is relevant and accurate, as per their current geospatial context and potential law enforcement interactions.”); paragraph [0041] (“Upon recognition, the audio processing system 140 can fetch pertinent legal information from the legal information database 160. This information, which can include penalties for or requirements of the mentioned violation within the current jurisdiction, can then be displayed to the driver. By maintaining this level of dynamic update, the audio processing system 140 can ensure the driver is equipped with the most relevant and accurate legal information as the law enforcement interaction unfolds.”); paragraph [0063] (“FIG. 5A is a diagram illustrating an example of training an advanced language model 500, in accordance with the present disclosure. The advanced training language 500 may represent various forms of artificial intelligence techniques, including but not limited to generative AI models, machine learning models, or Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT)-like technologies.”); paragraph [0120] (systems));
- receiving a user request through a mobile application installed on an electronic computing device, wherein the request is comprised of a voice command (paragraph [0035] (“In certain implementations, the recording devices 130 can also extend to incorporate the cameras and microphones on the driver's or other users' mobile devices.”); paragraph [0039] (“The audio processing system 140 can leverage the recording devices 130, or, in some cases, it can tap into the driver's mobile device's audio input, given necessary permissions, to effectively capture audio data.”); paragraph [0040] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0041] (whole paragraph]); paragraph [0053] (“The audio capture devices can be positioned to capture conversations within and/or outside the vehicle.”); paragraph [0063] (“The advanced language model 500 may include or may be included in a computing device, a server, a cloud computing environment, or the like, such as the mitigation system 100 described herein.”); paragraph [0067] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0106] (“For example, the integrated cameras can record the actions of both the driver and the law enforcement officer, while the audio capture device records their conversation.”));
- processing the voice command using a natural language processing module to interpret the command (paragraph [0035] (“In certain implementations, the recording devices 130 can also extend to incorporate the cameras and microphones on the driver's or other users' mobile devices.”); paragraph [0039] (“The audio processing system 140 can leverage the recording devices 130, or, in some cases, it can tap into the driver's mobile device's audio input, given necessary permissions, to effectively capture audio data.”); paragraph [0040] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0041] (whole paragraph]); paragraph [0053] (“The audio capture devices can be positioned to capture conversations within and/or outside the vehicle.”); paragraph [0063] (“The advanced language model 500 may include or may be included in a computing device, a server, a cloud computing environment, or the like, such as the mitigation system 100 described herein.”); paragraph [0067] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0106] (“For example, the integrated cameras can record the actions of both the driver and the law enforcement officer, while the audio capture device records their conversation.”));
- querying a legal database stored on a server system in response to the interpreted command, the legal database comprised of a legal guidelines (paragraph [0007] (much of paragraph); paragraph [0023] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0026] (mitigation system 100 includes legal information database 160); paragraph [0031] (“For instance, acquired geographic coordinates can serve as a query parameter for the legal information database 160. This query can enable the mitigation system 100 to fetch the jurisdiction-specific legal information in accordance with the vehicle's current location. In some cases, this process equips the driver with legal information that is relevant and accurate, as per their current geospatial context and potential law enforcement interactions.”); paragraph [0040] (much of paragraph); paragraph [0041] (“Upon recognition, the audio processing system 140 can fetch pertinent legal information from the legal information database 160. This information, which can include penalties for or requirements of the mentioned violation within the current jurisdiction, can then be displayed to the driver. By maintaining this level of dynamic update, the audio processing system 140 can ensure the driver is equipped with the most relevant and accurate legal information as the law enforcement interaction unfolds.”); paragraphs [0045]-[0047] (legal information database 160); paragraphs [0081]-[0082] (most of these paragraphs); paragraphs [0083]-[0084] (most of these paragraphs); paragraph [0089] (“The advanced language model 500 enables recognition and/or identification of tens, hundreds, thousands, or millions of features and/or feature values for tens, hundreds, thousands, or millions of observations, thereby increasing accuracy and consistency and reducing delay associated with delivering personalized, real-time legal advice.”); paragraph [0120] (“Systems and modules described herein may comprise software, firmware, hardware, or any combination(s) of software, firmware, or hardware suitable for the purposes described. Software and other modules may reside and execute on servers, workstations, personal computers, computerized tablets, PDAs, and other computing devices suitable for the purposes described herein.”));
- generating a customized legal response using an AI module based on the queried legal database (paragraph [0007] (much of paragraph); paragraph [0023] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0031] (“For instance, acquired geographic coordinates can serve as a query parameter for the legal information database 160. This query can enable the mitigation system 100 to fetch the jurisdiction-specific legal information in accordance with the vehicle's current location. In some cases, this process equips the driver with legal information that is relevant and accurate, as per their current geospatial context and potential law enforcement interactions.”); paragraph [0040] (much of paragraph); paragraph [0041] (“Upon recognition, the audio processing system 140 can fetch pertinent legal information from the legal information database 160. This information, which can include penalties for or requirements of the mentioned violation within the current jurisdiction, can then be displayed to the driver. By maintaining this level of dynamic update, the audio processing system 140 can ensure the driver is equipped with the most relevant and accurate legal information as the law enforcement interaction unfolds.”); paragraphs [0081]-[0082] (most of these paragraphs); paragraphs [0083]-[0084] (most of these paragraphs); paragraph [0089] (“The advanced language model 500 enables recognition and/or identification of tens, hundreds, thousands, or millions of features and/or feature values for tens, hundreds, thousands, or millions of observations, thereby increasing accuracy and consistency and reducing delay associated with delivering personalized, real-time legal advice.”));
- providing the customized legal response to the user through the mobile application (paragraph [0007] (much of paragraph); paragraph [0023] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0025] (“The mitigation system can include a display interface within the vehicle or on a mobile communication device.”); paragraph [0031] (“For instance, acquired geographic coordinates can serve as a query parameter for the legal information database 160. This query can enable the mitigation system 100 to fetch the jurisdiction-specific legal information in accordance with the vehicle's current location. In some cases, this process equips the driver with legal information that is relevant and accurate, as per their current geospatial context and potential law enforcement interactions.”); paragraph [0033] (“In some cases, the actions include activating a mitigation app running on a mobile device.”); paragraph [0040] (much of paragraph); paragraph [0041] (“Upon recognition, the audio processing system 140 can fetch pertinent legal information from the legal information database 160. This information, which can include penalties for or requirements of the mentioned violation within the current jurisdiction, can then be displayed to the driver. By maintaining this level of dynamic update, the audio processing system 140 can ensure the driver is equipped with the most relevant and accurate legal information as the law enforcement interaction unfolds.”); paragraph [0052] (“This camera can be focused on the driver's seat, passenger seats, and/or rear seats, capturing interactions between the driver, passengers, and law enforcement officers during an interaction. In some scenarios, a camera 212 and/or microphone 214 of a mobile device 220 (e.g., a driver's cell phone), can be employed (e.g., to supplement the captured data).”); paragraph [0063] (“The advanced language model 500 may include or may be included in a computing device, a server, a cloud computing environment, or the like, such as the mitigation system 100 described herein.”); paragraphs [0083]-[0084] (most of these paragraphs); paragraph [0089] (“The advanced language model 500 enables recognition and/or identification of tens, hundreds, thousands, or millions of features and/or feature values for tens, hundreds, thousands, or millions of observations, thereby increasing accuracy and consistency and reducing delay associated with delivering personalized, real-time legal advice.”); paragraph [0110] (“At block 712, the mitigation system 100 causes a display interface within the vehicle or on a mobile communication device to present jurisdiction-specific legal information and a communication channel with the legal aid professional or the contacts.”); paragraph [0120] (“Software and other modules may reside and execute on servers, workstations, personal computers, computerized tablets, PDAs, and other computing devices suitable for the purposes described herein.”); paragraph [0121] (“In this context, a remote distributed computing system or cloud-based service can refer to a service hosted by one more computing resources that are accessible to end users over a network, for example, by using a web browser or other application on a client device to interface with the remote computing resources.”)).
Njie fails to disclose wherein the legal database is comprised of a statute and a case law. Kemp discloses wherein the legal database is comprised of a statute and a case law (paragraph [0008] (“For example, where information related to a legal topic such as "securities" or "corporate" law is requested, and the responsive information is classified into types, including for example judicial decisions, statutes, administrative rules, and administrative decisions, a separate window is presented for each classification: one for judicial decisions, one for statutes, etc.”); paragraph [0035] (“Sources 170 can include, for example, various reporters or other gatherers of legal news and information, including newly-decided court decisions, reports of court cases, new codifications of statutes, rules, and the like, and other legal, business, professional, and/or news information. Preferably sources 170 provide information to provider 101 via network 102 in a standard format, easily and rapidly useable by provider 101, according to a protocol established by or agreed to by provider 101. Information provided by sources 170 to provider 101 is processed as required and stored in databases 121, and made available to requesting clients at user systems 150, each of which comprises a number of user-accessible terminals 106.”)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Njie such that the legal database is comprised of a statute and a case law, as disclosed by Kemp, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The modified Njie fails to disclose wherein the legal response is based on a user-specific data. Stevenson discloses wherein the legal response is based on a user-specific data (Figures 38-43; paragraph [0128] (“FIGS. 38-43 illustrate exemplary templates for inputting data concerning the debtor's liabilities. Such information is necessary in making a determination for filing bankruptcy, in particular for determining the appropriate chapter under which to file.”); paragraph [0129] (“Once such data is collected, the evaluation suite processes the information input by the user to calculate the user's financial condition, and provides customized output corresponding to that financial condition. Output of the Evaluation Suite contains several sections that are automatically selected based on the user's input using artificial intelligence to combine certain functions of a credit counselor with the functions of a bankruptcy attorney.”); claim 1; claim 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Njie such that the legal response is based on a user-specific data, as disclosed by Stevenson, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 12, the modified Njie fails to disclose wherein the legal database is updated in real-time. Kemp further discloses wherein the legal database is updated in real-time (paragraph [0012]; paragraph [0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Njie such that the legal database is updated in real-time, as disclosed by Kemp, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 13, the modified Njie fails to disclose retrieving a user-specific legal history from a user profile database. Stevenson further discloses retrieving a user-specific legal history from a user profile database (paragraph [0014]; paragraph [0114]; paragraph [0169]; paragraphs [0176]-[0178]; claim 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Njie such that the invention retrieves a user-specific legal history from a user profile database, as disclosed by Stevenson, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 14, the modified Njie fails to disclose incorporating the user-specific legal history into the customized legal response. Stevenson further discloses incorporating the user-specific legal history into the customized legal response (Figures 38-43; paragraph [0128]; paragraph [0129]; claim 1; claim 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Njie such that the invention incorporates the user-specific legal history into the customized legal response, as disclosed by Stevenson, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders, US 11551320 B1, in view of Njie.
As per Claim 15, Sanders discloses:
- a method of using a legal counsel system (column 1, lines 13-15 (“This disclosure is generally to assistance systems, and more particularly to a system and method for securely delivering legal services in real time.”); column 4, line 66, through column 5, line 9 (whole paragraph); column 5, lines 18-22 (“While the network 150 shown as a cloud, any of a variety of computers may be included in the network 150 for expeditiously connecting a particular legal professional with the client 110.”));
- receiving a user request for a legal assistance via a mobile application installed on a user's electronic computing device (column 1, lines 34-45 (“The system receives a request to connect a client with a legal professional for a particular legal event.”); column 3, lines 50-60 (“Continuing with the example, a user may be pulled over by a police officer may access the system through, for example, an application located on a smart phone.”));
- locating an available lawyer based on a user's location, a legal expertise, and an availability (column 3, lines 61-63 (“Based on the user's present location and the type of situation (which may involve user input and/or assessed information from the microphone/camera), the system may search for available attorneys/lawyers.”); column 3, line 65, through column 4, line 3 (“In particular configurations, the user and/or the system may choose to limit the search to lawyers in a specific geographic area, such as close to their house or workplace or lawyers with particular expertise.”); column 6, lines 38-56 (“When the lawyer is otherwise unavailable, he or she may inform the system. Alternatively, the lawyer may notify the system when he or she is available to join the system.”));
- matching the user with a selected lawyer and providing a real-time update on the selected lawyer's status through the mobile application (column 1, lines 34-45 (“The system also establishes a real-time two-way communication between the client and the selected legal professional where the client has not having previously communicated with the selected legal professional.”); column 3, line 61, through column 4, line 3 (searching); column 7, lines 58-63 (“The platform available on the client's device and the lawyer's device may display “live” if the client and the lawyer are connected; otherwise, if the lawyer and the client are in idle mode, the platform may display “idle.””); column 8, lines 33-41 (“When a client is pulled over by the police, lawyers who are appropriate for that case may be assigned.”));
- transmitting a relevant information about the user and a user's legal situation to the selected lawyer to enable informed legal support (Figure 4; column 4, lines 11-20 (“The lawyer may also be allowed to view a recording of minutes earlier before the lawyer was ultimately contacted to assess a situation beforehand.”); column 5, lines 29-46 (most of paragraph)).
Sanders fails to disclose wherein the legal counsel system is AI-based. Njie discloses wherein the legal counsel system is AI-based (paragraph [0040] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0043] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0092] (“Although described as being implemented by the mitigation system 100 of FIG. 1, it will be understood that one or more elements outlined for routine 600 can be implemented by one or more computing devices/components associated with the mitigation system, such as the vehicle monitoring system 110, the law enforcement interaction detection system 120, the recording devices 130, the audio processing system 140, the communication system 150, or the legal information database 160.”)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sanders such that the legal counsel system is AI-based, as disclosed by Njie, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 18, Sanders further discloses transmitting a video or an audio to the selected lawyer via the mobile application (column 3, lines 50-60).
As per Claim 19, Sanders further discloses initiating a communication with the selected lawyer via phone, text, or video call through the mobile application (Figure 4; column 3, lines 50-60; column 4, lines 11-20; column 7, lines 49-63; claim 1; claim 4).
As per Claim 20, Sanders further discloses selecting a lawyer via the mobile application based on an expertise of the lawyer (column 3, lines 61-63; column 3, line 65, through column 4, line 3; column 8, lines 33-41).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders in view of Njie in further view of Rathod, US 20170293950 A1.
As per Claim 16, the modified Sanders fails to disclose displaying a map showing a proximity of the available lawyer to the user's location. Rathod discloses displaying a map showing a proximity of the available lawyer to the user's location (paragraph [0002]; paragraph [0077]; paragraph [0108]; paragraph [0133]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Sanders such that the invention displays a map showing a proximity of the available lawyer to the user's location, as disclosed by Rathod, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 17, the modified Sanders fails to disclose wherein the real-time update is comprised of an estimated time of arrival of the selected lawyer. Rathod discloses wherein the real-time update is comprised of an estimated time of arrival of the selected lawyer (paragraph [0002]; paragraph [0027]; paragraph [0031]; paragraph [0032]; paragraph [0129]; paragraph [0133]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Sanders such that the real-time update is comprised of an estimated time of arrival of the selected lawyer, as disclosed by Rathod, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Heggenhougen, US 10997644 B1 (electronic system and method for connecting currently available nearby service providers with customers in need of service).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628