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
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites:
“A method of for analyzing text data, comprising:
detecting a plurality of actions of an author during creation of a document data file;
generating a metadata log data file of the plurality of actions;
analyzing the metadata log data file to identify one or more actions that fall outside of an authorized action portfolio;
generating a report that identifies the one or more actions.”
This is a mental process because the claims are directed to data observation (detecting actions) and data evaluation (generating a metadata log file, analyzing the metadata log, and generating a report) steps. Data observation and data evaluation steps are able to be performed by a human mind or a human using a generic computer.
The claim recites no additional elements beyond data observation and data evaluation steps.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements to the mental process, let alone additional elements that appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem.
Because there are no additional elements beyond the mental process, there are no additional elements that, in part or in whole, appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, or conventional. As such, none of the additional elements appears to be, in part or in whole, significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-8 are similarly rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed towards a mental process. There are no additional elements in the dependent claims. Each is directed to merely additional data definition, data observation, and data analysis steps. It is noted that the claimed data definitions and data analysis and extraction steps do not appear to include additional elements that incorporate the claimed subject matter into a practical application. The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that, in part or in whole, appear to be significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 9 recites:
“A system for determining original content in a document, comprising:
a word processing system operating on a first data processor that configures the data processor to generate a document file in response to a user input;
a metadata generator operating on the first data processor that configures the data processor to generate a log file containing a plurality of metadata at a plurality of points during the generation of the document file; and
a metadata analysis system operating on a second processor remote from the first processor that configures the second processor to receive the document file and the metadata file and to analyze the document file using the metadata file to generate an authorship authentication metric that identifies whether the document file was generated by a specific user.”
This is a mental process because the claims are directed to data evaluation (generating a log file, analyzing the document file and metadata log, and generating an authorship authentication metric) steps. Data evaluation steps are able to be performed by a human mind or a human using a generic computer.
The claim recites additional elements in the form of “a word processing system” and a first “data processor” and second “processor.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because none of the additional elements appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem.
The “data processor” and “processor” are recited at a high level of generality. They may be, at best, generic computing hardware elements. The recitation of generic hardware is little more than using a computer to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The “word processing system” appears to be a generic word processing application that one may use to generate documents and does not appear to improve the processing of a computer or provide a technological solution to a technological problem.
It is noted that none of the additional elements appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem. As such, none of the additional elements appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
None of the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, in part or in whole.
The recitation of generic hardware of the “data processors” little more than using a computer to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The “word processing system” is generically recited and defined solely by its output, notably, generating a document in response to a user input. Generic “Word Processor” applications, as of the earliest filing date, were well known, routine, and conventional in the art (see Capps (US Pre-Grant Publication 2002/0111813, paragraph [0005], and Sotomayor (US Patent 5,963,205, 31: 47-67, both of which discuss the existence of conventional word processors). As such, the inclusion of a generic word processing application in the claims is insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, in part or as a whole.
Dependent claims 10-17 are similarly rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed towards a mental process. There are no additional elements in the dependent claims. Each is directed to merely additional data definition, data observation, and data analysis steps. It is noted that the claimed data definitions and data analysis and extraction steps do not appear to include additional elements that incorporate the claimed subject matter into a practical application. The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that, in part or in whole, appear to be significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8 and 10-13 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.
Claim 8 contains the limitation “wherein analyzing the record comprises weighting at least of the actions in providing the report.” It is unclear how many of the actions receive weights.
Claims 10-13 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.
The claims contain the pronoun “it.” The pronoun “it” renders the meaning of each claim unclear, particularly regarding exactly which element “exceeds a threshold” in each claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bitton et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0296288).
As to claim 1, Bitton teaches a method of for analyzing text data, comprising:
detecting a plurality of actions of an author during creation of a document data file (see Bitton paragraph [0009], generally, which comprises all of the steps of independent claim 1. Also see paragraphs [0037]-[0038] and Figure 2, which show actions that are tracked categorized by action type. These actions are indicative of document creation);
generating a metadata log data file of the plurality of actions (see Bitton paragraphs [0037]-[0038] and Figure 2. Bitton explicitly creates a metadata log which includes entries tracking different inputs to a computer during a writing session, including the device type of input, output such as a key press or movement action, and timing of input);
analyzing the metadata log data file to identify one or more actions that fall outside of an authorized action portfolio (see Bitton paragraphs [0043]-[0046]. The metadata in the log file is analyzed to identify instances where text may have been produced by an AI rather than written by a human);
generating a report that identifies the one or more actions (see Bitton Figure 5 and paragraphs [0047]-[0050], wherein a report is generated that provides various statistics regarding the document creation process and a conclusion stating whether the document was produced by a human and how original the document is).
As to claim 2, Bitton teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of actions comprise at least two of the following:
keystroke timing, keystroke cycling, keystroke errors, keystroke corrections, mouse clicking, mouse movement, touch screen input, accessing external material, copying external material, accessing preexisting audio screen data, accessing preexisting data, playing preexisting audio, playing captured video, playing captured audio data, speaking audio that is configured to be translated into text and speaking audio that can be used to establish speaker identity (see Bitton paragraphs [0037]-[0038] and Figure 2).
As to claim 3, Bitton teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the report comprises certificate indicating author originality of the document (see Bitton paragraphs [0046] and [0049] and Figure 5).
As to claim 4, Bitton teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising providing a measure of at least one of original data of the author and non-original data of the author (see Bitton paragraph [0049] and Figure 5. The report shown in Figure 5 includes a measure of a percentage of how original a document is).
As to claim 5, Bitton teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising providing a measure of data generated directly by the author (see Bitton paragraph [0047] and Figure 5).
As to claim 6, Bitton teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising providing a measure of data externally accessed during creation of the document whether such data appears in the analyzed document (see Bitton paragraph [0049] and Figure 5).
As to claim 8, Bitton teaches the method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the record comprises weighting at least of the actions in providing the report (see Bitton paragraph [0042]).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bitton et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0296288) in view of Zhang et al. (US Patent 10,964,224).
As to claim 7, Bitton teaches the method of claim 1.
Bitton does not teach further comprising providing an option for the author to stipulate use for non-original data in the document.
Talley teaches further comprising providing an option for the author to stipulate use for non-original data in the document (see paragraph [0013]. An author may permit other users to add content to a document via collaboration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Bitton by the teachings of Talley because Talley provides the benefit of giving an author greater control over content that may be included in a document. This will increase options for a user in generating and including additional content.
Claims 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bitton et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0296288) in view of Zhang et al. (US Patent 10,964,224).
As to claim 9, Bitton teaches a system for determining original content in a document, comprising:
a word processing system operating on a first data processor that configures the data processor to generate a document file in response to a user input (see Bitton paragraph [0009] and [0037]-[0038] and Figure 2 and the rejection of claim 1);
a metadata generator operating on the first data processor that configures the data processor to generate a log file containing a plurality of metadata at a plurality of points during the generation of the document file (see Bitton paragraph [0009] and [0037]-[0038] and Figure 2 and the rejection of claim 1); and
a metadata analysis system … to receive the document file and the metadata file and to analyze the document file using the metadata file to generate an authorship authentication metric that identifies whether the document file was generated by a specific user (see Bitton Figure 5 and paragraphs [0038] and [0047]-[0050] and the rejection of claim 1).
Bitton does not explicitly teach:
a metadata analysis system operating on a second processor remote from the first processor that configures the second processor to receive the document file and the metadata file and to analyze the document file using the metadata file to generate an authorship authentication metric that identifies whether the document file was generated by a specific user.
Zhang teaches:
a metadata analysis system operating on a second processor remote from the first processor that configures the second processor to receive the document file and the metadata file and to analyze the document file using the metadata file to generate an authorship authentication metric that identifies whether the document file was generated by a specific user (see Zhang Figure 11B and 23:9-19. Figure 11B shows a system where user content is generated on user PCs. The information on the user’s writing behavior is provided to a remote processing system. The remote processing system then analyzes the user’s writing behavior in accordance with the method described at Zhang 6:18-20, 6:43-7:3 and 7:18-29, which show the analysis of time-stamped metadata to indicate the user’s writing process. It is also noted that this may be used to detect plagiarism, 8:61-9:6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Bitton by the teachings of Zhang because both references are directed towards tracking user input while generating document content and because Zhang provides the ability to allow external analysis and validation of the document, which will improve the ability of Bitton to analyze authorship of a document externally as a service and improve efficiency by offloading processing.
As to claim 10, Bitton as modified teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the metadata analysis system further comprises a keystroke analysis system operating on the second processor that configures the second processor to extract keystroke metadata from the metadata file and to analyze the keystroke metadata to determine whether it exceeds a threshold (see Bitton paragraphs [0038] and [0041] and [0044]. See Zhang Figure 11B and 23:9-19 for conducting the analysis on a remote system).
As to claim 11, Bitton as modified teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the metadata analysis system further comprises a mouse analysis system operating on the second processor that configures the second processor to extract mouse metadata from the metadata file and to analyze the mouse metadata to determine whether it exceeds a threshold (see Bitton paragraphs [0038] and [0041] and [0044]. See Zhang Figure 11B and 23:9-19 for conducting the analysis on a remote system).
As to claim 12, Bitton as modified teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the metadata analysis system further comprises an editing analysis system operating on the second processor that configures the second processor to extract editing metadata from the metadata file and to analyze the editing metadata to determine whether it exceeds a threshold (see Bitton paragraphs [0038]-[0039] and [0044]. See Zhang Figure 11B and 23:9-19 for conducting the analysis on a remote system).
As to claim 13, Bitton as modified teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the metadata analysis system further comprises a platform monitor system operating on the second processor that configures the second processor to extract platform metadata from the metadata file and to analyze the platform metadata to determine whether it exceeds a threshold (see Bitton paragraphs [0041]-[0042] and [0044]. See Zhang Figure 11B and 23:9-19 for conducting the analysis on a remote system).
As to claim 14, Bitton as modified teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the metadata analysis system further comprises a keystroke analysis system operating on the second processor that configures the second processor to extract keystroke metadata from the metadata file and to analyze the keystroke metadata to determine whether keystroke statistics match stored keystroke statistics (see Bitton paragraphs [0038] and [0041] and [0044]. See Zhang Figure 11B and 23:9-19 for conducting the analysis on a remote system).
As to claim 15, Bitton as modified teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the metadata analysis system further comprises a mouse analysis system operating on the second processor that configures the second processor to extract mouse metadata from the metadata file and to analyze the mouse metadata to determine whether mouse movement statistics match stored mouse movement statistics (see Bitton paragraphs [0038] and [0041] and [0044]. See Zhang Figure 11B and 23:9-19 for conducting the analysis on a remote system).
As to claim 16, Bitton as modified teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the metadata analysis system further comprises an editing analysis system operating on the second processor that configures the second processor to extract editing metadata from the metadata file and to analyze the editing metadata to determine whether editing statistics match stored editing statistics (see Bitton paragraphs [0038]-[0039] and [0044]. See Zhang Figure 11B and 23:9-19 for conducting the analysis on a remote system).
As to claim 17, Bitton as modified teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the metadata analysis system further comprises a platform monitor system operating on the second processor that configures the second processor to extract platform metadata from the metadata file and to analyze the platform metadata to determine whether platform statistics match stored platform statistics (see Bitton paragraphs [0041]-[0042] and [0044]. See Zhang Figure 11B and 23:9-19 for conducting the analysis on a remote system).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES D ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5:30 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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at 571-270-0474. 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.
/CHARLES D ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152