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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on March 10, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 24, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Step 2A Prong 2 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG.
Step 2B This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim 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. MPEP 2106.05.
Step 1 Statutory Category:
Claims 1-9 are recited as being directed to “a method”. Claims 10-18 is recited as being directed to “a system comprising at least one processor configured to perform operation comprising …”.
Thus claim 1 and 10 have been identified to be directed towards the appropriate statutory category. Below is further analysis related to step 2.
a). In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
Claim 1 and 10 recites, receiving an unstructured data set; transforming the unstructured data set into a data arrangement configured to be consumed by an upstream or downstream computational process, the transforming including extracting data from the unstructured data set; testing the data arrangement to determine whether confidence in the data arrangement is below a threshold; conditionally presenting the data arrangement for exception processing based on whether the testing reveals confidence in the data arrangement is below the threshold, the exception processing performing further analysis on the unstructured data set and/or the data arrangement; and using a machine learning component executing on at least one processor to automatically generate a summary of the data arrangement..
As claim texts drafted by a set of very minimal limitations (or elements) of each of the two claim categories, receiving unstructured data; transforming the unstructured data, testing the arrangement, conditionally presenting the data arrangement and using machine learning, are merely a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), but for the recitation of at least one processor configured to perform operation which are explicitly generic computing components, including:
“transforming the unstructured data set into a data arrangement configured to be consumed by an upstream or downstream computational process, the transforming including extracting data from the unstructured data set” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a user can transform or convert received unstructured document such as form, plain text document, a pdf file or an image and arrange or organize it in a desired format such as, if the received format is M,X,F for male and female, last name, first name, date of birth etc., (as described in Para [0094] of applicant’s specification) a user can arrange it in a format suitable for downstream process using his/her mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the transforming limitation is a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Similarly, “testing the data arrangement to determine whether confidence in the data arrangement is below a threshold”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a user can test the arrangement by setting a confidence threshold value by observing, evaluating and judging using his/her mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the testing limitation is a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Similarly, “conditionally presenting the data arrangement for exception processing based on whether the testing reveals confidence in the data arrangement is below the threshold, the exception processing performing further analysis on the unstructured data set and/or the data arrangement”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a user can set a confidence condition with a threshold value and if the arrangement condition fall below the set threshold value then data need to further analyzation, can perform using his/her mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, conditionally presenting the data arrangement for exception processing is a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The claim recites two additional; elements: “receiving an unstructured data set”, “using a machine learning component executing on at least one processor to automatically generate a summary of the data arrangement”.
The receiving step as recited amounts to mere data gathering for use in the detection step, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Further receiving input step as recited also amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transforming step as recited is merely transferring the received unstructured data and arrange it for downstream processing which is nothing more than data gathering and outputting. Hence, transforming step is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, 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 the abstract idea.
b) In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – “a system comprising at least one processor configured to perform operation comprising”, and “using a machine learning component”. The additional components are generic computer components even being recited as additional limitations, however, do not preclude the claims from reciting an abstract idea. For instance, as the above detailed analysis on the minimal limitations as abstract ideas that can be performed mentally in mind by human, without reciting any “additional element” to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The processes of receiving necessities for performing an action and providing indication of completed such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, processing unit(s), memory and computer readable medium for the processes. That is, the limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp). Accordingly, even considering all the elements as additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
c) In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
The claims 2, 12 and 21 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, there is simply no additional elements adding to the already analyzed very few minimal steps of performing action. The steps, represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry and are specified at a high level of generality, and in the context of the limitations reciting performing action that can be practically performed in the human mind and may be considered to fall within the mental process and mathematical concepts groupings.
As such, the limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp). The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 include all the limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively. Therefore, claims 2-9 and 11-18 recite the same abstract idea of concepts of in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement practically being performed in the mind, and the ana lysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
Accordingly, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 recite no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as defined in independent claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of transforming unstructured data for downstream processing. The claim recites the additional limitations of data arrangement and the summary is presented on a user interface, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, user can display or present the arrangement as a summary in a piece of paper or a computer screen for further analyzation. Hence, the limitation can be performed in human mind which is a mental process of observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of transforming unstructured data for downstream processing. The claim recites the additional limitations of wherein the exception processing comprises human interaction for a predefined metric, a requirement, and/or learned rules, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, user can find the exception in the unstructured data and manually process and analyze with certain rule or criteria. Hence, the limitation can be performed in human mind which is a mental process of observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of transforming unstructured data for downstream processing. The claim recites the additional limitations of wherein the exception processing includes analyzing handwritten information, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, user can find the handwritten text in the unstructured data and analyze it by observing and judgement using his/her brain. Hence, the limitation can be performed in human mind which is a mental process of observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of transforming unstructured data for downstream processing. The claim recites the additional limitations of wherein the exception processing includes translating from one natural language to another natural language, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, user can use the exception and transform data from one language to another language by observing and judgement using his/her brain. Hence, the limitation can be performed in human mind which is a mental process of observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of transforming unstructured data for downstream processing. The claim recites the additional limitations of wherein the testing tests for missing data, grammatical errors, typographical errors, and classification errors, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, user can test the transformed unstructured data by looking misspelling, typo or grammatical error by observing and judgement using his/her brain. Hence, the limitation can be performed in human mind which is a mental process of observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of transforming unstructured data for downstream processing. The claim recites the additional limitations of wherein the testing tests whether the received unstructured data set is invalid altogether, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, user can reject or invalidate the entire set of data by observing and judgement using his/her brain. Hence, the limitation can be performed in human mind which is a mental process of observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of transforming unstructured data for downstream processing. The claim recites the additional limitations of improving reliability of the data arrangement by minimizing potential for human error during a tedious, repetitive, and mundane transcription process, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, user can improve the reliability by finding human error and minimizing it by observing and judgement using his/her brain. Hence, the limitation can be performed in human mind which is a mental process of observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of transforming unstructured data for downstream processing. The claim recites the additional limitations of wherein receiving comprises receiving information in many formats from many different inputs, and transforming comprises extracting and transforming the data set into content that can be consumed by another system or process, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, user can receive data in many different formats but transform it one specific format which is acceptable by downstream process by observing and judgement using his/her brain. Hence, the limitation can be performed in human mind which is a mental process of observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 11-18 have similar limitation of abstract idea of claims 2-9 and therefore rejected for the same reason of abstract idea set forth to the rejection of claims 2-9 above.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al (US 2022/0358296 A1), in view of Ramaswamy et al (US 11,978,273 B1).
As per claim 1, Mehta discloses:
- a method comprising (Para [0026], [0029], Fig. 3, a method for categorizing sequences of text from a document”,
- receiving an unstructured data set (Fig. 1, item 140, Fig. 3, item 310, Para [0031], receiving document including text, image, pdf, handwritten document (i.e. unstructured data)”),
- transforming the unstructured data set into a data arrangement configured to be consumed by an upstream or downstream computational process, the transforming including extracting data from the unstructured data set (Fig. 1, item 120-130, Para [0030], [0032] - [0033], received unstructured document converted (i.e., transformed) and organize into category or group (i.e., arrangement) for downstream processing, Para [0066], conversion includes extracting of text from documents)
- using a machine learning component executing on at least one processor to automatically generate a summary of the data arrangement (Par Fig. 2A-2F, Fig. 3, item 335, [0006], [0014], [0046], [0062], machine learning algorithm used to create categorized text document (i.e. summary arrangement), Fig. 2B, 2C summarized by type from document 2A using machine or deep learning algorithm),
Mehta does not explicitly disclose testing the data arrangement to determine whether confidence in the data arrangement is below a threshold; conditionally presenting the data arrangement for exception processing based on whether the testing reveals confidence in the data arrangement is below the threshold, the exception processing performing further analysis on the unstructured data set and/or the data arrangement. However, in the same field of endeavor Ramaswamy in an analogous art disclose testing the data arrangement to determine whether confidence in the data arrangement is below a threshold (column 43, line 45-60, Fig. 6A, item 638 testing the extracted OCR information correlation of OCR data in an expected format (i.e., arrangement) with threshold value, column 69, line 15-35), conditionally presenting the data arrangement for exception processing based on whether the testing reveals confidence in the data arrangement is below the threshold, the exception processing performing further analysis on the unstructured data set and/or the data arrangement (Fig. 6A, item 652, column 50, line 40-67 and column 51, line 1-35, processing exception for data input and output format within a threshold and exception process perform manual review (i.e., further analysis) of unstructured data, Fig. 6A, item 642, column 13, line 15-30, column 43, line 15-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the testing data arrangement to determine whether confidence of data arrangement is within a threshold value taught by Ramaswamy as the means to transform unstructured data for upstream or downstream processing, (Ramaswamy, Fig. 6A, item 652, column 50, line 40-67, Mehta Fig. 1, item 120-130, Para [0030], [0032] - [0033]). Mehta and Ramaswamy are analogous prior art since they both deal with transforming unstructured data for downstream processing. A person of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make aforementioned modification to improve accuracy and efficiency in data categorization and organization for downstream processing. This is because one aspect of Mehta invention is to find inaccurate, misspelling text in unstructured data and analyze and correct it before sending it to downstream process as described at least in Para [0004] – [0006]. Testing data arrangement within a confidence threshold is part of this unstructured data transformation and arrangement process. However, Mehta doesn’t specify any particular manner in which test data arrangement within a confidence threshold. This would have lead one of the ordinary skill in the art to seek and recognize testing data arrangement within a confidence threshold as taught by Ramaswamy. Ramaswamy describes how their ML/AI models and techniques can be used to effectively process and analyze unstructured data such as claim forms, charts, and other related image artifacts and document images, thereby delivering reliable and accurate results for further downstream tasks and use cases, as described at least in column 40, line 60-67, as desired by Mehta.
As per claim 2, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Ramaswamy discloses:
- wherein the data arrangement and the summary is presented on a user interface (column 30, line 55-65, column 31, line 35-45, GUI 844 allow user to organize metadata (i.e., arrangement) to inspect and correct extracted values”).
As per claim 3, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Ramaswamy discloses:
- wherein the exception processing comprises human interaction for a predefined metric, a requirement, and/or learned rules (Fig. 6A, item 642, 646, column 49, line 1-15, column 50, line 10-20, exceptional format validated with manual review (i.e., human interaction).
As per claim 4, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Ramaswamy discloses:
- wherein the exception processing includes analyzing handwritten information (column 13, line 25-45, column 27, line 20-35image, structured and semi-structured data with printed or handwritten information, column 61, line 45-55).
As per claim 5, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Mehta discloses:
- wherein the exception processing includes translating from one natural language to another natural language (Para [0016], [0059], analyzing text (i.e., exceptional text) in different language).
As per claim 6, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Mehta discloses:
- wherein the testing tests for missing data, grammatical errors, typographical errors, and classification errors (Para [0006], [0013] error in categorization (i.e., classification), text, addressing misspelling).
As per claim 7, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Ramaswamy discloses:
- wherein the testing tests whether the received unstructured data set is invalid altogether (column 4, line 5-10, column 31, line 20-25), test unstructured data for validation).
As per claim 8, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Ramaswamy discloses:
- improving reliability of the data arrangement by minimizing potential for human error during a tedious, repetitive, and mundane transcription process (column 40, line 60-67, column 41, line 15-20, improving accuracy and reliability of data extraction from OCR process).
As per claim 9, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Mehta discloses:
- wherein receiving comprises receiving information in many formats from many different inputs, and transforming comprises extracting and transforming the data set into content that can be consumed by another system or process (Fig. 1A, Para [0031] – [0032], document received are in different format and converted (i.e., transformed) for downstream process (i.e., another system or process),
As per claim 10-18,
Claims 10-18 are system claims corresponding to method claims 1-9 respectively and rejected for the same reason set forth to the rejection of claims 1-9 above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED R UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3138. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM-5:00 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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at (571) 272-4080. 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.
/MOHAMMED R UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2167