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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This action is response to the application filed on June 10, 2025.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
This is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/391,099, filed on December 20, 2023 and entitled “Systems and Methods for Maintaining a Random Sample of Documents.” The disclosure of which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b) Paper No(s)/Mail Date: Receipt Date 06/10/2025.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12/339,893. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12/339,893 (hereinafter, "Patent"), contains every element of claim 1-20 of the instant application (hereinafter, "Instant Applicant") and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
"A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Claims 1-20 should have been rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12/339,893. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
Patent No. 12/339,893
1.A method for maintaining random sample of documents, the method comprising:
ingesting, via one or more processors, a first set of documents into a pool of documents;
sorting, via the one or more processors, the first set of documents into a random order to generate an initial ordering of the pool of documents;
defining, via the one or more processors, the random sample of documents to be an initial set of documents within an ordering of the pool of documents;
ingesting, via one or more processors, a second set of documents into the pool of documents; and
interleaving, via the one or more processors, the second set of documents into the initial ordering of documents to generate an updated ordering of the pool of documents wherein the documents within the first set of documents remain in a same relative order with respect to other documents within the first set of documents.
1.A method for maintaining a random sample of documents, the method comprising:
ingesting, via one or more processors, a first set of documents into a pool of documents;
sorting, via the one or more processors, the first set of documents into a random order to generate an initial ordering of the pool of documents;
providing, via the one or more processors, documents within the pool of documents to a review platform based at least in part upon the initial ordering of the pool of documents;
defining, via the one or more processors, the random sample of documents to be an initial set of documents within an ordering of the pool of documents
associated with labels applied via the review platform, wherein the initial set of documents changes in size as additional documents are reviewed via the review platform;
ingesting, via one or more processors, a second set of documents into the pool of documents; and
interleaving, via the one or more processors, the second set of documents into the initial ordering of documents to generate an updated ordering of the pool of documents wherein the documents within the first set of documents remain in a same sequential order with respect to other documents within the first set of documents
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 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frank et al (US 20080228754 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 18 and 20, Frank et al teaches
ingesting, via one or more processors, a first set of documents into a pool of documents (Abstract, first corpus of documents to identify a first set of documents, wherein each document of the first set of documents: identified documents are identified by a plurality of document identifiers; receiving a first result set for the first corpus of documents, the first result set identifying the first set of documents in order of relevance);
sorting, via the one or more processors, the first set of documents into a random order to generate an initial ordering of the pool of documents (Abstract, first corpus of documents to identify a first set of documents, wherein each document of the first set of documents: identified documents are identified by a plurality of document identifiers; receiving a first result set for the first corpus of documents, the first result set identifying the first set of documents in order of relevance);
defining, via the one or more processors, the random sample of documents to be an initial set of documents within an ordering of the pool of documents (claims 1. receiving a first result set for the first corpus of documents, the first result set identifying the first set of documents in order of relevance);
ingesting, via one or more processors, a second set of documents into the pool of documents (Abstract, receiving a second result set for the second corpus of documents, the second result set identifying the second set of documents in order of relevance; and merge sorting the first and second result sets to produce a new result set that is ordered in relevance) and;
interleaving, via the one or more processors, the second set of documents into the initial ordering of documents to generate an updated ordering of the pool of documents wherein the documents within the first set of documents remain in a same relative order with respect to other documents within the first set of documents ([0241] Document ranker 56 combines various relevance scores for each document in a result set and sorts the documents by this combined relevance. The combination function may be an averaging or a weighted sum or some other combining function tailored to the various relevance scores used. The document ranker 56 may take streams of sorted result sets from several database systems and merge sort them to produce a new result set. [0239] The final result list of documents might be sorted for return to the user. The sorting procedure might extract only a portion of the documents with the highest relevance).
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Frank et al teaches analyzing, via the one or more processors, labels associated with the random sample of documents to generate a metric associated with the pool of documents ([0233] The search 50 process answers queries via the procedure in FIG. 6. A query, bounding region specifying a closed shape (typically a polygon in two dimensions), words, phrases, and layers. The bounding region can be the domain frame from the map interface 80).
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Frank et al teaches the labels are applied via a review platform and indicate a responsiveness to an inquiry; and the metric associated with the pool of documents is a richness of documents responsive to the inquiry ([0233] The search 50 process answers queries via the procedure in FIG. 6. A query includes at least one of the following: a bounding region specifying a closed shape (typically a polygon in two dimensions), words, phrases, and layers. The bounding region can be the domain frame from the map interface 80).
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Frank et al teaches calculating, via the one or more processors, at least one of a precision, recall, or elusion of a classifier based upon the richness metric ([0241] Document ranker 56 combines various relevance scores for each document in a result set and sorts the documents by this combined relevance. The combination function may be an averaging or a weighted sum or some other combining function tailored to the various relevance scores used. The document ranker 56 may take streams of sorted result sets from several database systems and merge sort them to produce a new result set).
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Frank et al teaches tracking, via the one or more processors, historical values for the metric as additional documents are reviewed via a review platform ([0230] FIG. 5, the search 50 process responds to queries with a set of documents ranked by relevance).
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Frank et al teaches assigning, by the one or more processors, documents in the first set of documents a random number; and sorting, by the one or more processors, the first set of documents based upon the corresponding random numbers ([0241] Document ranker 56 combines various relevance scores for each document in a result set and sorts the documents by this combined relevance. The document ranker 56 may take streams of sorted result sets from several database systems and merge sort them to produce a new result set).
With respect to claims 7 and 17, Frank et al teaches assigning, by the one or more processors, documents in the second set of documents a random number; and interleaving, by the one or more processors, the second set of documents such that the pool of documents is sorted based upon the corresponding random numbers ([0230] FIG. 5, the search 50 process responds to queries with a set of documents ranked by relevance).
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Frank et al teaches detecting, via the one or more processors, that a document has been removed from the pool of documents; and removing, via the one or more processors, the removed document from the ordering of the pool documents ([0230] FIG. 5, the search 50 process responds to queries with a set of documents ranked by relevance).
With respect to claims 9 and 19, Frank et al teaches removing the removed document from the ordering of the pool of documents maintains a correspondence between the removed document and the assigned random number ([0230] FIG. 5, the search 50 process responds to queries with a set of documents ranked by relevance).
With respect to claim 10, Frank et al teaches providing, via the one or more processors, documents within the pool of documents to a review platform based at least in part upon a priority score assigned by a classifier ([0241] The document ranker 56 may take streams of sorted result sets from several database systems and merge sort them to produce a new result set).
Conclusion
The prior arty made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Roberts et al (US-6650431-B1) Processing Documents With Multiple Output Devices.
Considered for teaching for routing an electronic document to an output device. The electronic document comprises first and second sets of pages, in which the first set of pages has a first characteristic and the second set has a second characteristic. Using a parser or based on information embedded in the electronic document, the first and second sets of pages are identified. First and second output devices, that are respectively compatible with the first and second sets of pages, are selected. The pages are automatically routed to the respective output devices. In a preferred embodiment, the electronic document has both monochrome and black-and-white pages and color pages.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC M WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-4043. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 5:00.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ISAAC M WOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights