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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The filed information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The pending claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites: An apparatus comprising: one or more processors and at least one memory device; configured to receive at least one of: a token; an entity type; a part of speech; a relationship; an identifier; regex or language/character patterns; and a link, the one or more processors configured to perform a language matching function based on at least one of: the string; a portion of the string; the token; the entity type; the part of speech; the relationship; the identifier; regex or language/character patterns, and the link; the one or more processors configured to generate language matching data based on one or more language matches determined by the language matching function; and the one or more processors configured to transmit an initiation action signal based on the language matching data.
Applicant is referred to MPEP 608.01(i) for claims presentation, i.e. when a claim sets forth a plurality of steps, each step of the claim should end with a semicolon (;) and be separated by a line indentation. Elements within a limitation preferably should end with a comma (,).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
The claimed invention, at independent claim 1, is directed to a system (machine) wherein one or more processors and at least one memory device; configured to receive at least one of: a token; an entity type; a part of speech; a relationship; an identifier; regex or language/character patterns; and a link, the one or more processors configured to perform a language matching function based on at least one of: the string; a portion of the string; the token; the entity type; the part of speech; the relationship; the identifier; regex or language/character patterns, and the link; the one or more processors configured to generate language matching data based on one or more language matches determined by the language matching function; and the one or more processors configured to transmit an initiation action signal based on the language matching data.
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Under the 35 U.S.C. 101 new guidelines, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the claimed steps fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The step of receiving at least one of: a token; an entity type; a part of speech; a relationship; an identifier; regex or language/character patterns; and a link, may be practically performed by a human receiving data.
The step of performing a language matching function based on at least one of: the string; a portion of the string; the token; the entity type; the part of speech; the relationship; the identifier; regex or language/character patterns, and the link, encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. The claim does not provide any details about how the processor operates or how the performing is made.
The step of generating language matching data based on one or more language matches determined by the language matching function may be practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. A human can match language data without using a machine.
As to the step of transmitting an initiation action signal based on the language matching data is considered as data gathering and manipulating, which extra-solution activity.
The claim does not provide any details about how the one or more processors operates or how the performing/generating… is made, and the plain meaning of performing/ generating encompasses mental observations or evaluations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claimed steps fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim recites the additional elements of “receiving by one or more processors”, “performing a language matching function by one or more processors”, and “generating language matching data by one or more processors” are mere data gathering and manipulating recited at high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor is recited at a high level of generality, and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
As to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim (Step 2B), as explained above in Step 2A, Prong 2, the use of “one or more processors” is at high level of generality, and even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 further refer initiating a comparison of the string to a known jargon database (claim 2); initiating a comparison of the string to a drafter's communication history data (claim 3), initiating a comparison of the string to a drafter's user group or social group (claim 4); initiating a comparison of the string to a frequency or timing information of communications between a drafter and one or more recipients (claim 5); initiating an analysis procedure based on at least one of a drafter context or one or more recipients' context which (Claim 6); and converting the language matching data into an idea for the string (claim 7), encompasses a mental process that is practically performed in the human mind, as explained above in Step 2A, Prong 1. Accordingly, claims 1-7 are directed to an abstract idea, and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cookson (US 2016/0259778).
As per claim 1, Cookson teaches one or more processors and at least one memory device (Fig. 1);
the one or more processors configured to receive at least one of: a token; an entity type, a part of speech, a relationship, an identifier, regex or language/character patterns, and a link ([0035], receiving email content comprising sentences, tokens, and parts of speech, entities);
the one or more processors configured to perform a language matching function based on at least one of: the string, a portion of the string, the token, the entity type, the part of speech, the relationship, the identifier, regex or language/character patterns, and the link ([0037], identifying the people, places and things that are mentioned in the communication based on a hybrid approach which utilizes NER, pattern matching, names matching, and computational linguistics.);
the one or more processors configured to generate language matching data based on one or more language matches determined by the language matching function ([0263], [0358]- [0367], using mapping and matching function to generate matching data/candidates, i.e. identifiers, artifacts); and
the one or more processors configured to transmit an initiation action signal based on the language matching data ([0048], based on the one or more idea links, initiating an action of organizing information related to organizations, business units, people, vendors, customers, suppliers and other know entities and the communications between them ... See also, [0384], [0384], a displaying component 416 can include machine instructions that, when executed by the processing resources 402 can display a digital communication along with zero or more potentially corresponding digital artifacts on a user interface. The display can be controlled by a user by means of a user interface.).
As per claim 5, Cookson teaches wherein the initiation action signal initiates a comparison of the string to a frequency or timing information of communications between a drafter and one or more recipients ([0266], wherein the system determines the sender’s intention based on comparison of the string and the time/minutes of the communication) .
As per claim 6, Cookson teaches wherein the initiation action signal initiates an analysis procedure based on at least one of a drafter context or one or more recipients' context ([0019], determining and applying communication context to identify any semantic reference to one or more digital artifacts and for identifying and locating the one or more digital artifacts) .
As per claim 7, Cookson teaches wherein the one or more processors convert the language matching data into an idea for the. String ([0048], converting lots of individual emails (and/or other communications) into a lot more than just email, but framework for organizing information related to organizations, business units, people, vendors, customers, suppliers and other know entities and the communications between them and the roles of individuals involved and the relative importance and urgency of communications there between).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cookson (US 2016/0259778) in view of Catalano (US 2019/0361974).
As per claim 2, Cookson may not explicitly disclose wherein the initiation action signal initiates a comparison of the string to a known jargon database. Catalano (US 2019/0361974) in the same field of endeavor teaches a system for evaluating a written communication data, wherein known terms and/or jargon of a user profile are matched to the terms and/or jargon from the data sources ([0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use the above feature of Catalano with the system of Cookson, in order to provide accurate data resolution and reporting.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cookson (US 2016/0259778).
As per claim 3, Cookson teaches initiating action signal based on the language matching data, as evidenced by paragraphs [0048] and [0384]. Cookson also teaches, at paragraph [0048], using previous communications from the sender to identify identical sections of text to recognize a possible email signature and/or disclaimer; and using history of inter-personal communications to resolve ambiguities ([0228]). Accessing previous communications, and/or stored communications in an archive that is available to the system user would assist a recipient in resolving that reference to a particular digital artifact, or when ambiguous, a set of candidate artifacts that best match the context of the reference, as evidenced by paragraph [0013]. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed for the system of Cookson to initiate a comparison of the string to a drafter's communication history data.
As per claim 4, Cookson teaches, at paragraph [0095], wherein the system collects information about the person such as gender, a publicly available avatar, the organization that person works for, their job title at that organization, as well as contact information such as phone numbers, physical and mailing addresses, and virtual and social locators such as website, LinkedIn profile, Twitter username, etc. The system uses these information to classify the person to belong to a specific job. Therefore, initiating comparison of a string (person’s identifier) to a specific group, i.e. gender, job title… is necessarily disclosed by the teaching of Cookson.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELALI SERROU whose telephone number is (571)272-7638. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 Am - 5 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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
/ABDELALI SERROU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659 07/10/2026
Prosecution Insights