DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicants application filing received on May 5, 2025. Claim(s) 1-18 is/are currently pending in the instant application. The application is a Continuation of U.S. application 18/510,393, filed on November 15, 2023, now abandoned, which is a Continuation of U.S. application 17/193,992, filed on March 5, 2021, now abandoned.
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 1-18 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.
Claims 1-18 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system, method, or product and is a system for identifying functional areas of an entity and products used by the functional area which is a system (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to and system Claim 14. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold).
an entity functional area and product use identifier comprising one or more computing devices, and an entity functional area and product use identification computer program having a plurality of sub-programs executable by said computing device or devices, wherein the sub-programs configure said computing device or devices to,
access a plurality of input-output examples, wherein the input of each input-output example comprises a job title and job description combination found in a training document and the output of each input-output example comprises a known entity functional area associated with the training document used to derive the input,
train a functional area classifier, comprising product name and entity name identification components, and employing a supervised machine learning technique using the plurality of input-output examples, wherein the functional area classifier once trained comprises a functional area inferring function that identifies at least one functional area of an entity as well as, for each functional area identified, a name of at least one product the functional area employs based on an input comprising a job title and job description combination,
access documents that are likely to infer an entity's functional areas and list the products the functional areas employ,
for each document,
employ the trained functional area classifier to identify one or more functional areas of an entity inferred in the document, and for each functional area identified, one or more names of products the functional area employs,
establish an entity name-functional area- product name combination for each functional area of the entity inferred in the document and each name of a product the functional area employs, and
output a report listing the established entity name-functional area-product name combinations.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mental processes. Accessing documents, identifying functional areas from documents, identifying products, establishing combinations for products, and outputting a list recites concepts performed in the human mind. But for the “one or more computing devices” and “supervised machine learning technique” language, the claim encompasses a user reading one or more documents and collecting the necessary data to determine functional area, the name of at least one product in the area, and reporting the combination of functional area and product combination using his/her mind or with use of pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computing device and well known learning techniques does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The system for identifying functional areas and products in claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. Claim 14 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one or more computing devices (Claims 1, 14). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1 and 14 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0067] about implantation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices [The simplified computing device 10 is typically found in devices having at least some minimum computational capability such as personal computers (PCs), server computers, handheld computing devices, laptop or mobile computers, communications devices such as cell phones and personal digital assistants (PDAs), multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, and audio or video media players.] and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 18, and 19 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-13, and 15-18 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 14 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Claims 2, 3 are a covered under MPEP 2106.05(d)II. v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition);
Claim 4 is similar to MPEP 2106.05(d)II. v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
Claims 5, 11, 12 are equitable to MPEP 2106.05(d)II. ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
Claim 6 is similar to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claims 7-10, 13 are covered by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claim 15 is similar to MPEP 2106.05(d)II. v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); [AltContent: rect]
Claim 16 is covered under MPEP 2106.05(d)II. v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
Claim 17 is similar to MPEP 2106.05(d)II. v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition);
Claim 18 is drawn to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Therefore, the claims 2-14, and 16-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art generally refers to identifying products and functional areas including systems and methods.
U.S. Publication 2021/0110411 A1 - A method, in which one or more processing devices perform operations, includes executing a content-extraction agent that extracts activity data describing interactions with online resources by one or more user devices associated with a target entity. The method includes organizing the activity data into an input descriptive data structure associated with the target entity. The method includes computing a probability of the target entity belonging to a decision-making group by applying, to the input descriptive data structure, a role-classification model that is trained to determine probabilities that entities belong to the decision-making group. The method further includes transmitting an indication of the probability to a content provider, where transmitting the indication of the probability causes the content provider to customize interactive content to the target entity prior to a transmission of the interactive content to the one or more user devices.
U.S. Publication 2021/0149980 A1 - Connections among two different entities are identified by processing a collection of documents to identify one or more documents that contain co-occurring mentions of each of the two different entities. This relationship may be graphically displayed in a user interface with an icon or the like for each of the two entities, along with a graphical link interconnecting the entities. The graphical link can be an active element of the user interface that responds to user interactions by providing access to evidence within the collection of documents that substantiates the connection between the two entities. In one aspect, a search input form field in a user interface may be used to explicitly request documents that substantiate a relationship between two entities. In another aspect, a user may ground entity mentions by explicitly selecting documents that mention an entity of interest.
U.S. Publication 2018/0025370 A1 - The method and systems of the present invention is directed towards forecasting and modeling projected sales of a portfolio of products (e.g., video game/software titles) in order to obtain a corresponding projected sales of a platform (e.g., console). The method is aimed at maximizing the projected sales of the platform by providing saturation of targeted consumer segments (e.g., groups of users) of a total addressable market. In particular, the present invention takes into consideration the constrained resources (e.g., budget) that can be spent on various different products and partnerships in order to maximize platform sales.
U.S. Publication 2015/0286723 A1 - Systems, methods, and computer-readable storage media are provided for identifying dominant entity categories associated with target entities. A target entity is received and plural data sources are utilized to determine entity categories of which the target entity is a member and an initial confidence score for each of the entity categories. Each initial confidence score represents the likelihood that the associated entity category is a dominant category for the target entity. At least one data source includes information pertaining to plural entities arranged in a graph-based ontology that includes identifiers of respective entity categories of which the subject entities are members. Graph-based confidence score propagation is then utilized to incorporate information regarding entities determined to be related to the target entity and accolades associated with the target entity to alter the initial confidence scores provided for various entity categories of which the target entity is a member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights