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 .
Remarks
This action is in response to the amendments received on 6/23/26. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Applicants' arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One asks: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? See MPEP 2106.04 Part I. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity or performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
With respect to claims 1, 10, and 12, the limitation of “generating a prediction” and “further evaluating the received plurality of documents”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “generating” and “evaluating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally analyzing data. Similarly, the limitation of “building and applying a filter” and “generating documents from at least a sub-portion of the received plurality of documents”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a well-known method of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “building and applying” and “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the idea of filtering content to a parent or librarian forbidding children from reading certain books (See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. The claim then requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two, to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At step 2a, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 12 recites a processor to execute the operations and a machine learning model, however, this is recited as a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the claim recites “receiving a plurality of documents,” “receiving a selection of a filter value,” “receiving a selection of at least one of the filter criteria,” and “generating a graphical user interface that comprises automatically generated filter criteria based on the predictive value for each of the other predicted responsive phrases, the other predicted responsive concepts, or the other predicted meta-data.” These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
With respect to “receiving a plurality of documents,” “receiving a selection of a filter value,” and “receiving a selection of at least one of the filter criteria”, the courts have found limitations directed towards data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
With respect to “generating a graphical user interface”, the courts have found limitations directed towards obtaining information electronically to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 2-4 and 13-15, the limitations further define the above components and do not include additional elements.
With respect to claims 5 and 16, the limitations disclose updating the filter value and rebuilding the filter. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “updating” and “rebuilding” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally analyzing data.
With respect to claims 6 and 17, the limitations further define the above components and do not include additional elements.
With respect to claims 7, 9, 11, 18, and 20, the limitations disclose “generating a predictive value”, which has been addressed above.
With respect to claims 8 and 19, the limitations disclose “determining a frequency count value” which as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally analyzing data.
Response to Amendment
35 U.S.C. 103
With regard to claims 1-20, the amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. The Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claims 1-20.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant argues that the human mind cannot generate a predictive value as claimed because it is being computed based on a pairwise count matrix. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A human can mentally think about a pairwise count matrix when determining a predictive value. The claims do not specify what the pairwise count matrix includes and the claim limitations do not require computing the pairwise matrix, therefore, this does not describe anything other than a mental process. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a pairwise count matrix is data indicating a count of co-occurrences for two items. The machine learning model provides an element additional to the abstract idea, however, this is recited as a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY N ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3566. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/BRITTANY N ALLEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights