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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Claim 1
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a metho that performs at least one step. Thus, the claim is a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Limitation “determining the change to be made meets a simple change criterion being a document change complexity criterion set by an administrator to conform with an intended use of a document owner of a document database, the intended use being associated with an industry of the document owner.” This limitation recites a judicial exception because it encompasses the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Specifically, the limitation requires “determining” whether a change meets a specific “criterion,” which involves evaluations and judgments. These are actions that can be practically performed in the human mind.
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Here, the mentioned steps fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas and are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two: The claim recites the additional elements:
entering a change to a content in a document in a database;
filtering a plurality of documents in the database with metadata;
searching a matched document with matching metadata;
searching the content in the matched document;
requesting the change to the content in the matched document;
updating the matched document with the change;
storing the updated matched document in the database;
reporting the update of the matched document to a document owner of the matched document;
generic computer components (e.g., database, communication controller)
MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field.
The limitations “filtering a plurality of documents in the database with metadata” and “searching a matched document with matching metadata” describe data manipulation and retrieval operations. These do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology.
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine.
The claim does not recite a particular machine or a specific hardware architecture. The “database” and “document database” are generic storage systems and do not describe a unique or specific physical machine structure.
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The limitation “updating the matched document with the change” is data modification. It does not involve a particular transformation of an article or a manufacture, such as a physical or chemical change to a tangible object.
MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
The limitation “reporting the update of the matched document to a document owner of the matched document” is a notification step. The limitation is not meaningful limitations.
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The limitations “entering a change to a content in a document in a database,” “requesting the change to the content in the matched document,” and “storing the updated matched document in the database” are considered insignificant extra-solution activity because they are data management and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
The limitations relate to the document management and database interaction. However, the limitations do not describe a specific, non-generic solution to a technical problem within that field.
Accordingly, the additional limitations 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 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. While the claim includes several data manipulation steps, such as “entering a change to a content in a document in a database,” “filtering a plurality of documents in the database with metadata,” “searching a matched document with matching metadata,” “searching the content in the matched document,” “requesting the change to the content in the matched document,” “updating the matched document with the change,” “storing the updated matched document in the database,” and “reporting the update of the matched document to a document owner of the matched document,” these are all well-understood functions. These elements do not describe a specific, non-generic solution to a specific technical problem (Berkheimer v. HP Inc.) but instead represent a standard way to implement the mental/commercial process of determining document change complexity using a database. As the ordered combination merely utilizes standard computer functions to execute the abstract idea of document management without improving computer capabilities in a non-conventional way, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “further comprising importing the plurality of documents into the database, wherein the plurality of documents contains the metadata”. Claim 2 adds the limitation of importing documents containing metadata into a database. Claim 2 does not add an inventive concept.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the metadata is a combination of a plurality of document classes or document attributes.” Claim 3 specifies that the metadata consists of a combination of document classes or attributes. This limitation does not provide the "significantly more" required to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the simple change is a single word change”. Claim 4 limits the "simple change" to a single word change. This limitation does not provide the "significantly more" required to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Claim 5 recites “further comprising skipping the reporting step when a requester and the document owner are the same”. Claim 5 adds a conditional step to skip reporting if the requester and owner are identical. This limitation does not provide the "significantly more" required to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Claim 6 recites “further comprising requesting the change to the content in a set of matched documents”. This limitation simply requests changes across multiple items. This limitation does not provide the "significantly more" required to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Claim 7
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method that performs at least one step. Thus, the claim is a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim "recites" a judicial exception when the judicial exception is "set forth" or "described" in the claim.
Limitation “presetting a document change complexity criterion set by an administrator to conform with an intended use of a document owner of a document database, the intended use being associated with an industry of the document owner.” This limitation recites a judicial exception because it encompasses the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. It describes a method for organizing human activity based on "intended use" and "industry" associations. For example, a business owner might establish rules for how documents are handled based on specific industry standards to ensure compliance with commercial practices.
Limitation “determining a complexity of the change by applying the document change complexity criterion.” This limitation recites a judicial exception because it encompasses the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. The limitation requires “determining” a “complexity,” which involves cognitive actions such as observations, evaluations, and judgments. These are processes that can practically be performed in the human mind.
"Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas." MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. "For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record." MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Here, the mentioned steps fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes groupings of abstract ideas and are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two: The claim recites the additional elements:
defining a metadata applicable for a plurality of documents in a database;
entering the metadata to filter the plurality of documents in a database;
searching a metadata in the plurality of documents in the database with a metadata parameter;
finding a matched metadata having the metadata in the plurality of documents in the database;
generating the matched documents based on the matched metadata;
updating a content within the matched documents with a change as requested by a requester;
performing the change without reporting when the complexity of the change is a simple change;
reporting the change before performing the change when the complexity of the change is a complex change;
generic computer components (e.g., database)
MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field.
The limitations “defining a metadata applicable for a plurality of documents in a database” and “updating a content within the matched documents with a change as requested by a requester” do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or technology. The limitations here involve data management tasks such as defining metadata and updating content rather than a technical improvement to the computer itself.
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine.
The limitations “searching a metadata in the plurality of documents in the database with a metadata parameter” and “generating the matched documents based on the matched metadata” do not recite a particular machine or manufacture that significantly modifies the claim scope. These limitations describe database operations and retrieval mechanisms that do not implement the abstract idea using a particular machine in a meaningful way.
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The limitations “entering the metadata to filter the plurality of documents in a database” and “finding a matched metadata having the metadata in the plurality of documents in the database” do not recite a particular transformation or reduction of an article. The filtering and finding matched metadata are information retrieval steps that do not constitute a significant physical or technical transformation sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
The limitations “updating a content within the matched documents with a change as requested by a requester” and “reporting the change before performing the change when the complexity of the change is a complex change” are generic actions taken by the requester or system in response to data inputs The additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The limitation text including “performing the change without reporting when the complexity of the change is a simple change” and “reporting the change before performing the change when the complexity of the change is a complex change” constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations function to output results but do not add meaningfully to the claim's technical scope beyond generic output functions.
MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
The limitation text including “presetting a document change complexity criterion set by an administrator” describes setting up a rule within a specific field (document management). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not integrate the exception. The claim is directed to a document database environment and does not improve that specific technological environment or apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond standard software functionality.
Accordingly, the additional limitations 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 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements fail to recite an inventive concept ("significantly more") because they utilize standard computer functions to execute the claimed abstract idea of filtering and managing document complexity based on generic rules without adding a specific technical solution or improvement. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the document change complexity criterion includes one of a simple change criterion or a complex change criterion”. Claim 8 adds the limitation that the complexity criterion is categorized into "simple" or "complex" changes. This limitation does not provide the "significantly more" required to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Claim 9 recites “further comprising determining whether the change to be made in the content is categorized as the simple change criterion or the complex change criterion”. Claim 9 adds a step for determining the category of the change based on the pre-defined criteria. This limitation describes a judgment or evaluation process, which falls under the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation does not provide the "significantly more" required to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the document change complexity criterion is defined by a document owner”. Claim 10 specifies that the document owner is the party who defines the complexity criterion. This limitation does not provide the "significantly more" required to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the document change complexity criterion is hardcoded into the database system”. Claim 11 specifies that the criterion is hardcoded into the system. This limitation does not provide the "significantly more" required to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Claim 12 recites “further comprising updating the change to be made in the content for the simple change criterion”. Claim 12 adds a step of updating the content specifically for simple changes. This limitation does not provide the "significantly more" required to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Claim 13
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method that performs at least one step. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim "recites" a judicial exception when the judicial exception is "set forth" or "described" in the claim.
Limitation “determining the change to be made does not meet a simple change criterion being a document change complexity criterion set by an administrator to conform with an intended use of a document owner of a document database, the intended use being associated with an industry of the document owner.” This limitation recites a judicial exception because it encompasses the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Specifically, the limitation requires “determining” a “complexity,” which involves cognitive actions such as evaluations and judgments. These are processes that can practically be performed in the human mind.
"Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas." MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. "For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record." MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Here, the mentioned steps fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas and are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two: The claim recites the additional elements:
entering a change to a content in a document in a database;
filtering a plurality of documents in the database with metadata;
searching a matched document with matching metadata;
searching the content in the matched document;
requesting the change to the content in the matched document;
notifying a document owner of the matched document about the change;
changing the content in the matched document based on the request when the change is approved by the document owner;
updating the matched document with the change;
storing the updated matched document in the database;
generic computer components (e.g., database)
MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field.
The limitations “filtering a plurality of documents in the database with metadata,” “searching a matched document with matching metadata,” “updating the matched document with the change,” and “storing the updated matched document in the database” describe data management and retrieval operations. These limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology.
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine.
The claim does not recite a particular machine or a specific hardware architecture. The “database” mentioned in the limitations is a generic storage system and does not describe a unique or specific physical machine structure.
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The limitation “updating a content within the matched documents with a change as requested by a requester” involves digital data modification. It does not involve a particular transformation of an article or a manufacture, such as a physical or chemical change to a tangible object.
MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
The limitation “reporting the update of the matched document to a document owner of the matched document” is a notification step. The limitation is not meaningful limitations.
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The limitations “entering a change to a content in a document in a database,” “requesting the change to the content in the matched document,” “notifying a document owner of the matched document about the change,” and “changing the content in the matched document based on the request when the change is approved by the document owner” are considered insignificant extra-solution activity because they are necessary for standard data management and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea of determining complexity.
MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
The limitations relate to the environment of document management and database interaction. However, the generic environment does not describe a specific solution to a technical problem within that field.
Accordingly, the additional limitations 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 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. While the claim includes several data manipulation steps, however, these are all well-understood computer functions. These elements do not describe a specific, non-generic solution to a specific technical problem (Berkheimer v. HP Inc.) but instead represent a standard way to implement of determining document change complexity using a database. As the ordered combination merely utilizes standard computer functions to execute the abstract idea of document management without improving computer capabilities or solving a specific technical problem in a non-conventional way, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites “further comprising importing the plurality of documents into the database, wherein the plurality of documents contain metadata”. Claim 14 adds the limitation of importing documents containing metadata into a database. This limitation does not provide the "significantly more" required to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the metadata is a combination of a plurality of document classes or document attributes”. Claim 15 specifies that the metadata consists of a combination of document classes or attributes. This limitation does not provide the "significantly more" required to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Claim 16 recites “further comprising a document owner review for the change is conducted by a plurality of document owners”. Claim 16 specifies that a review is conducted by multiple owners. This limitation does not provide the "significantly more" required to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Claim 17 recites “further comprising if a first document owner rejected the change to be made, notifying a second document owner in charge of the document owner review of the rejected change”. Claim 17 adds a specific communication workflow for handling rejections. This limitation does not provide the "significantly more" required to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Claim 18 recites “further comprising updating the change to be made in the content when one of the pluralities of document owners accepted the change”. Claim 18 adds a conditional update based on human approval. This limitation does not provide the "significantly more" required to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Claim 19 recites “further comprising skipping the reporting step when a requester and the document owner are the same”. Claim 19 adds a conditional step to skip reporting based on the identity of the parties involved. This limitation does not provide the "significantly more" required to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Claim 20 recites “further comprising requesting the change to the content in a set of matched documents”. Claim 20 expands the scope of the change request to a "set" of matched documents. Requesting changes across multiple items is a conventional way of using a database. This limitation does not provide the "significantly more" required to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
U.S. Pub 20020111824 – Grainger discloses a method of managing documents related to a patent application. In one embodiment the method includes storing a first workflow rule on a server system where the first workflow rule causes the server system to generate a message that requests approval to prepare a patent application for an invention disclosure and route the message to a second client system upon receipt of a first signal indicating a request to submit the invention disclosure for approval. The method also includes storing a first invention disclosure in a database accessible by said server system; receiving, at the server system, a first signal from a first client system indicating a request to submit the first invention disclosure for approval. Upon receipt of the first signal, the server system then executes the first workflow rule to generate a message requesting approval of a second client system to prepare a patent application from the first invention disclosure and communicate the message to the second client system.
U.S. Patent 7788237 – Voronov discloses a change list tracking mechanism supports features that require a record of values that have been modified in a document of a project management software application. Examples of the features supported include multiple undo, report generation, and audit logging. The change list tracking mechanism includes object containers and change lists. Each object container includes objects that are associated with properties of the document. A user who wants to be notified of specific modifications creates the change list to track modifications made to a specific object property in a particular object container. A property value identified in the change list may be modified by any user that accesses the document. The corresponding object container provides information about the modification to the change list. The user is identified and notified of the modification.
U.S. Patent 6996601 – Smith discloses a Change Management Procedure that enables businesses and other enterprises to effectively manage, record, and communicate changes by employing a centralized control agency to review, approve, document, and communicate changes taking place within an enterprise. While the Change Management Procedure is applicable to any type of change, in the preferred embodiment the procedure manages changes in electronic computer systems including but not limited to architecture changes, outages (e.g., hardware, software or facility), replacement of hardware, upgrading of software, and rebooting of devices. By requiring that all changes be formally requested and approved, the Change Management Procedure prevents unauthorized changes. The Change Management Procedure also creates an audit trail that keeps a record of all changes for future reference. Another advantage of the Change Management Procedure is the communication of changes to operating units within the enterprise that are potentially interested in the change. At any step within the Change Management Procedure, entities that might be affected by a change may be notified of the change. Thus, potentially interested operating units can be aware of changes before they occur and can be informed of all changes that have occurred.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights