DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Communication received 02/16/2025 for 19054880. Claims 1-20 are presented.
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 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.
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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/16/2025 and 08/06/2025 was filed before the mailing date of a first action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 10, 12, 14-15, and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claims 1, 14, and 18 recite "the type and amount of source content of the original version of the first source page" and "the type and amount of content that can be accommodated by the first template page" which lack antecedent basis and have been interpreted as "[[the]] --a-- type and amount of source content of the original version of the first source page" and " [[the]] --a-- type and amount of content that can be accommodated by the first template page", respectively.
Claims 2, 15, and 19 recite "the type and amount of source content defined by the first rewrite of the first source page" which lacks antecedent basis and has been interpreted as "[[the]] --a-- type and amount of source content defined by the first rewrite of the first source page".
Claim 10 recites "the set of one or more source objects" which lacks antecedent basis and has been interpreted as "[[the]] --a-- set of one or more source objects".
Claim 12 recites "the first content" which is unclear if the "first content" refers to the "first source content" as recited in parent claim 11 or another source content and has been interpreted as "the first --source-- content".
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 16, and 20 recite the limitation "the source objects" which is unclear if the "source objects" refer to the "first set of source objects" as recited in parent claims 1, 14, and 18, respectively, or another set of source objects and have been interpreted as "the --first set of-- source objects".
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-14, and 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites a method accessing a first set of source objects, wherein each source object in the first set of source objects corresponds to source content of a source design and the first set of source objects correspond to a first source page; generating a first source page partition key, wherein the first source page partition key corresponds to an original version of the first source page and includes a plurality of partition key values that provide a first measure of the type and amount of source content of the original version of the first source page; generating a first source page vector, wherein the first source page vector includes a plurality of page vector values that provide a second measure of the type and amount of source content of the original version of the first source page; identifying a first set of or more template pages, wherein each template page in the first set of one or more template pages is a specific page of a specific template that potentially matches the first source page, and wherein identifying the first set of one or more template pages includes: comparing the first source page partition key to a first template page partition key that is associated with a first template page; and determining that the first template page potentially matches the first source page if the first source page partition key matches the first template page partition key; calculating a first score in respect of the original version of the first source page and the first template page, wherein the first score is calculated based on the first source page vector and a first template page vector that is associated with the first template page and includes a plurality of page vector values that provide a second measure of the type and amount of content that can be accommodated by the first template page; and selecting the first template page as a final match for the first source page based on the first score.
The limitation of generating a first source page partition key, wherein the first source page partition key includes a plurality of partition key values that provide a first measure of the type and amount of source content of the original version of the first source page, 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" in the context of this claim encompasses a user observation or evaluation of a key including values based on user observations of a type and amount of source content observed in an original version of a first source page.
The limitation of generating a first source page vector, wherein the first source page vector includes a plurality of page vector values that provide a second measure of the type and amount of source content of the original version of the first source page, 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. For example, "generating" in the context of this claim encompasses a user evaluation of a mathematical vector including other vector values based on user observations of another type and amount of source content observed in an original version of a first source page.
The limitation of identifying a first set of or more template pages including comparing the first source page partition key to a first template page partition key that is associated with a first template page; and determining that the first template page potentially matches the first source page if the first source page partition key matches the first template page partition key, 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, "identifying", "comparing", and "determining" in the context of this claim encompasses a user evaluation selecting of template pages by a user observation or evaluation comparing the first source page partition key to a first template page partition key and a user evaluation matching a first template page to the first source page based on a user evaluation of an observed first source page partition key and an observed first template page partition key.
The limitation of calculating a first score in respect of the original version of the first source page and the first template page, wherein the first score is calculated based on the first source page vector and a first template page vector that is associated with the first template page and includes a plurality of page vector values that provide a second measure of the type and amount of content that can be accommodated by the first template page, 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, "calculating" in the context of this claim encompasses a user evaluation of a first score based on the observed first source page vector, an observed first template page vector, and a user observation or evaluation of page vector values based on user observations of a second measure of a type and content.
The limitation of selecting the first template page as a final match for the first source page based on the first score, 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, "selecting" in the context of this claim encompasses a user evaluation deciding on a first template page for the first source page based on the evaluated first score.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites a computer and accessing source objects. The computer and accessing source objects are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)]. The claim also recites additional elements of source objects, source content, source design, first source page, an original version of the first source page, and specific template pages that can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of page development [MPEP 2106.05(h)].
The accessing represents mere data gathering (obtaining the source objects) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, as the accessed source objects is used in the abstract mental process of generating and calculating. The accessing is recited at a high level of generality and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)]. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the mental processes that the user performs (e.g., the mental observations and evaluations), using the computer components as a tool.
Accordingly, these 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 is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 of a computer, accessing source objects, source objects, source content, source design, first source page, an original version of the first source page, and specific template pages amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept.
The accessing, as discussed above, represents mere data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, these elements are well-understood, routine and conventional. With respect to the "accessing" source objects, the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional [MPEP 2106.05(d))(II), "electronic recordkeeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"].
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.
The dependent claims also recite limitations of wherein the first source page partition key is generated to include a partition key texts value that is based on a number of source objects in the first set of source objects that define text-type source content (claims 4, 17), a partition key fills value that is based on a number of fills defined in the first set of source objects (claim 5), a partition key charts value that is based on a number of charts defined in the first set of source objects (claim 6), a partition key tables value that is based on a number of tables defined in the first set of source objects (claim 7); wherein the first source page vector includes a set of one or more characters values, wherein a first characters value is associated with a first text hierarchy level and is based on a number of text characters that are defined in the first set of source objects and that are at the first text hierarchy level (claim 8), a set of one or more lines values, wherein a first lines value is associated with a first text hierarchy level and is based on a number of lines of text that are defined in the first set of source objects and that are at the first text hierarchy level (claim 9), one or more values selected from a group including: a characters value, a lines value, a partial fills value, a complete fills value; a charts aspect ratio value, a tables aspect ratio value (claim 10) that are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components encompassing user evaluations of values based on an observed number of source objects, an observed number of fills, an observed number of charts; user evaluations of a mathematical vector and values based on a user observation or evaluation of a text hierarchy level, an observed number of text characters, an observed number of lines of text; and a user observation or evaluation of a value based on observed values and thus fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The dependent claims recite additional limitations including a set of source object attributes, a source identifier attribute, a type attribute, a reading order attribute (claim 11) and a particular text hierarchy level and the first set of source object attributes includes at least one of: a text hierarchy level attribute, a characters attribute, and a lines attribute (claim 12) are recited so generically that they generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of page development [MPEP 2106.05(h)] and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The dependent claims also recite additional limitations of generating a new deck-format design page based on the first template page and the source content of the source design that are recited at a high level of generality (claim 13) that represent insignificant extra-solution activity including nominal or tangential additions to the claim, amounting to mere data collection or data output [MPEP 2106.05(g)]. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of outputting data are recited at a high level of generality which are well-understood, routine, or conventional activities [MPEP 2106.05(d))(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics"] and remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration [MPEP 2106.05(g)]. Linking the use of an exception to a technological field of use and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites method steps substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and recite an abstract idea. While the claim recites additional elements of a system, processing units, storage media, and executable instructions, the elements are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and 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 does 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 of a system, processing units, storage media, and executable instructions 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. 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.
Claim 18 recites method steps substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and recite an abstract idea. While the claim recites additional elements of storage media, executable instructions, and processing units, the elements are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and 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 does 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 of storage media, executable instructions, and processing units 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. 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 15, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objects set forth in this Office action and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3, 16, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The Examiner has carefully examined claims 2-3, 15-16, and 19-20. The closest prior art references of record are noted below.
Eshghi et al. (US 20220108065 A1) generally teaches document template feature vectors including document vector values.
Tanigawa et al. (US 20060069677 A1) generally teaches page document templates utilizing structure indices and determining whether a document structure is identical to an acquired structure template.
Bedi et al. (US 20200097536 A1) generally teaches selecting a template based on comparing weighted document layout parameters and template layout parameters.
Applicant's claims have been considered in view of the prior art. After reviewing the art and performing a search, no combination of prior art reads on the claim as a whole. Specifically, the claim limitations in combination are as a whole novel and non-obvious over the prior art. In addition, no reference uncovered would have provided a basis of evidence for asserting a motivation, nor one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made, knowing the teaching of the prior arts of record would have combined them to arrive at the present invention as recited in the context of the independent claims as a whole.
Regarding the claims, the prior art of record broadly discloses sources pages and document page templates. Moreover, the prior art of record teaches generating source page vectors and identifying templates potentially matching a source page by comparing source page values to page template.
However, the prior art of record does not explicitly teach the more intertwined nature of the current claims after the most recent amendment. The specific source pages, source page partition keys, template page partition keys, source page vectors, and template page vectors being claimed and how the source pages, page partition keys, and page vectors interact is not taught by the prior art, specifically, a plurality of partition key values that provide a first measure of the type and amount of source content of the original version of the first source page, a plurality of page vector values that provide a second measure of the type and amount of source content of the original version of the first source page, wherein the first score is calculated based on the first source page vector and a first template page vector that is associated with the first template page and includes a plurality of page vector values that provide a second measure of the type and amount of content that can be accommodated by the first template page, a plurality of partition key values that provide a first measure of the type and amount of source content defined by the first rewrite of the first source page, and identifying that a second template page is a potential match for the first rewrite of the first source page based on the second source page partition key and a second template page partition key that is associated with the second template page.
Allowing such specific source pages, source page partition keys, template page partition keys, source page vectors, and template page vectors is not taught by the previously cited art. Moreover, the generated rewrite of the first source page as well as including the second template page in the first set of template pages associated therewith fully integrate any type of high level accessing, generating, identifying, comparing, determining, calculating, and selecting into a practical application. Therefore, it is for at least these reasons that the claim language, in the specific order recited, defines patentability over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5240 and email is linda.huynh@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F between 9am-5pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/LINDA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172