DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a Non-Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 19/242968 filed on June 18, 2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 U.S.C. §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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 1, specifically claim 1 recites "(b) determining, by the computing system, that the document comprises line item data” in the context of this claim encompasses the user that the document contains line item data, "(d) responsive to the first similarity score between outputs of the respective pair of classification models exceeding the threshold, comparing the outputs of each classification model of the respective pair to one or more predetermined strings, by the computing system using a fuzzy model” in the context of this claim encompasses the comparing the output models to a strings based. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human identify documents and using data from the documents, comparing the output to a classification model. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 1 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example “(a) receiving, by a computing system comprising one or more processing devices, a document” is seen as the additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “(c) responsive to the determination that the document comprises line item data:(c-1) iteratively applying different pairs of classification models to the line item data, by the computing system, until a first similarity score between outputs of a respective pair of classification models exceeds a first threshold” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to the additional elements and are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
For example “and (e) responsive to a second similarity score between the outputs of each classification model of the respective pair and a predetermined string of the one or more predetermined strings exceeding a second threshold, applying, by the computing system, a label corresponding to the predetermined string to the document or line item data” do 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 are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(f)(i) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “(a) receiving, by a computing system comprising one or more processing devices, a document”, “(c) responsive to the determination that the document comprises line item data:(c-1) iteratively applying different pairs of classification models to the line item data, by the computing system, until a first similarity score between outputs of a respective pair of classification models exceeds a first threshold”, “and (e) responsive to a second similarity score between the outputs of each classification model of the respective pair and a predetermined string of the one or more predetermined strings exceeding a second threshold, applying, by the computing system, a label corresponding to the predetermined string to the document or line item data”.
For example, “(a) receiving, by a computing system comprising one or more processing devices, a document” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “(c) responsive to the determination that the document comprises line item data:(c-1) iteratively applying different pairs of classification models to the line item data, by the computing system, until a first similarity score between outputs of a respective pair of classification models exceeds a first threshold” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of 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.") (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)).
For example, “and (e) responsive to a second similarity score between the outputs of each classification model of the respective pair and a predetermined string of the one or more predetermined strings exceeding a second threshold, applying, by the computing system, a label corresponding to the predetermined string to the document or line-item data” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 2, specifically claim 2 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 2 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein determining that the document comprises line item data further comprises applying an optical character recognition model, a natural language processing model, or an edge detection model to the document to detect the line item data” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein determining that the document comprises line-item data further comprises applying an optical character recognition model, a natural language processing model, or an edge detection model to the document to detect the line item data”.
For example, “wherein determining that the document comprises line-item data further comprises applying an optical character recognition model, a natural language processing model, or an edge detection model to the document to detect the line item data”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner of storing and retrieving information in memory, MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 3, specifically claim 3 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 3 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein in at least one iteration, the pair of classification models comprises a combination of a first model and second model used in a previous iteration, and a third model” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein in at least one iteration, the pair of classification models comprises a combination of a first model and second model used in a previous iteration, and a third model”.
For example, “wherein in at least one iteration, the pair of classification models comprises a combination of a first model and second model used in a previous iteration, and a third model”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner of storing and retrieving information in memory, MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 4, specifically claim 4 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 4 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein during a first iteration, a respective pair of classification models is applied using a first search string, and during a second iteration, a respective pair of classification models is applied using a second search string” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein during a first iteration, a respective pair of classification models is applied using a first search string, and during a second iteration, a respective pair of classification models is applied using a second search string”.
For example, “wherein during a first iteration, a respective pair of classification models is applied using a first search string, and during a second iteration, a respective pair of classification models is applied using a second search string”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner of storing and retrieving information in memory, MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 5, specifically claim 5 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 5 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “further comprising (f) applying a regular expression parser to the line item data, by the computing system, the regular expression parser selected from a plurality of predetermined regular expression parsers based on the applied label” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “further comprising (f) applying a regular expression parser to the line item data, by the computing system, the regular expression parser selected from a plurality of predetermined regular expression parsers based on the applied label”.
For example, “further comprising (f) applying a regular expression parser to the line item data, by the computing system, the regular expression parser selected from a plurality of predetermined regular expression parsers based on the applied label”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner of storing and retrieving information in memory, MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 6, specifically claim 6 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 6 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “further comprising iteratively repeating steps (c) and (d) until the second similarity score between the outputs of each classification model of the respective pair and the predetermined string of the one or more predetermined strings exceeds the second threshold, wherein each iteration utilizes a different pair of classification models” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “further comprising iteratively repeating steps (c) and (d) until the second similarity score between the outputs of each classification model of the respective pair and the predetermined string of the one or more predetermined strings exceeds the second threshold, wherein each iteration utilizes a different pair of classification models”.
For example, “further comprising iteratively repeating steps (c) and (d) until the second similarity score between the outputs of each classification model of the respective pair and the predetermined string of the one or more predetermined strings exceeds the second threshold, wherein each iteration utilizes a different pair of classification models”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner of storing and retrieving information in memory, MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 7, specifically claim 7 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 7 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “further comprising displaying, by the computing system, the applied label and document or line item data” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “further comprising displaying, by the computing system, the applied label and document or line item data”.
For example, “further comprising displaying, by the computing system, the applied label and document or line item data”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner of storing and retrieving information in memory, MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 8, specifically claim 8 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 8 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein the first similarity score is determined using a similarity measure index” is seen as the additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the first similarity score is determined using a similarity measure index”.
For example, “wherein the first similarity score is determined using a similarity measure index”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner of storing and retrieving information in memory, MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 9, specifically claim 9 recites "determine that the document comprises line item data” in the context of this claim encompasses the user that the document contains line item data, "responsive to the first similarity score between outputs of the respective pair of classification models exceeding the threshold, compare the outputs of each classification model of the respective pair to one or more predetermined strings using a fuzzy model” in the context of this claim encompasses the comparing the output models to a strings based. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human identify documents and using data from the documents, comparing the output to a classification model. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 9 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “a computing system comprising one or more processing devices and one or more memory devices storing a document and a plurality of classification models; wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to” is seen as the additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “responsive to the determination that the document comprises line item data: iteratively apply different pairs of classification models to the line item data, until a first similarity score between outputs of a respective pair of classification models exceeds a first threshold” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to the additional elements and are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
For example “and responsive to a second similarity score between the outputs of each classification model of the respective pair and a predetermined string of the one or more predetermined strings exceeding a second threshold, apply a label corresponding to the predetermined string to the document or line item data” do 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 are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(f)(i) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “a computing system comprising one or more processing devices and one or more memory devices storing a document and a plurality of classification models; wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to”, “responsive to the determination that the document comprises line item data: iteratively apply different pairs of classification models to the line item data, until a first similarity score between outputs of a respective pair of classification models exceeds a first threshold”, “and responsive to a second similarity score between the outputs of each classification model of the respective pair and a predetermined string of the one or more predetermined strings exceeding a second threshold, apply a label corresponding to the predetermined string to the document or line item data”.
For example, “a computing system comprising one or more processing devices and one or more memory devices storing a document and a plurality of classification models; wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “responsive to the determination that the document comprises line item data: iteratively apply different pairs of classification models to the line item data, until a first similarity score between outputs of a respective pair of classification models exceeds a first threshold” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of 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.") (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)).
For example, “and responsive to a second similarity score between the outputs of each classification model of the respective pair and a predetermined string of the one or more predetermined strings exceeding a second threshold, apply a label corresponding to the predetermined string to the document or line item data” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 10, specifically claim 10 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 10 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein determining that the document comprises line item data further comprises applying an optical character recognition model, a natural language processing model, or an edge detection model to the document to detect the line item data” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein determining that the document comprises line-item data further comprises applying an optical character recognition model, a natural language processing model, or an edge detection model to the document to detect the line item data”.
For example, “wherein determining that the document comprises line-item data further comprises applying an optical character recognition model, a natural language processing model, or an edge detection model to the document to detect the line item data”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner of storing and retrieving information in memory, MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim 11, specifically claim 11 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 11 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein in at least one iteration, the pair of classification models comprises a combination of a first model and second model used in a previous iteration, and a third model” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein in at least one iteration, the pair of classification models comprises a combination of a first model and second model used in a previous iteration, and a third model”.
For example, “wherein in at least one iteration, the pair of classification models comprises a combination of a first model and second model used in a previous iteration, and a third model”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner of storing and retrieving information in memory, MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 12, specifically claim 12 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 12 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein during a first iteration, a respective pair of classification models is applied using a first search string, and during a second iteration, a respective pair of classification models is applied using a second search string” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein during a first iteration, a respective pair of classification models is applied using a first search string, and during a second iteration, a respective pair of classification models is applied using a second search string”.
For example, “wherein during a first iteration, a respective pair of classification models is applied using a first search string, and during a second iteration, a respective pair of classification models is applied using a second search string”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner of storing and retrieving information in memory, MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 13, specifically claim 13 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 13 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to apply a regular expression parser to the line item data, the regular expression parser selected from a plurality of predetermined regular expression parsers based on the applied label” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to apply a regular expression parser to the line item data, the regular expression parser selected from a plurality of predetermined regular expression parsers based on the applied label”.
For example, “wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to apply a regular expression parser to the line item data, the regular expression parser selected from a plurality of predetermined regular expression parsers based on the applied label”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner of storing and retrieving information in memory, MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 14, specifically claim 14 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 14 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to further iteratively apply different pairs of classification models to the line item data until the second similarity score between the outputs of each classification model of the respective pair and the predetermined string of the one or more predetermined strings exceeds the second threshold, wherein each further iteration utilizes a different pair of classification models” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to further iteratively apply different pairs of classification models to the line item data until the second similarity score between the outputs of each classification model of the respective pair and the predetermined string of the one or more predetermined strings exceeds the second threshold, wherein each further iteration utilizes a different pair of classification models”.
For example, “wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to further iteratively apply different pairs of classification models to the line item data until the second similarity score between the outputs of each classification model of the respective pair and the predetermined string of the one or more predetermined strings exceeds the second threshold, wherein each further iteration utilizes a different pair of classification models”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner of storing and retrieving information in memory, MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 15, specifically claim 15 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 15 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to display the applied label and document or line item data” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to display the applied label and document or line-item data”.
For example, “wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to display the applied label and document or line-item data”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner of storing and retrieving information in memory, MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 16, specifically claim 16 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 16 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein the first similarity score is determined using a similarity measure index” is seen as the additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the first similarity score is determined using a similarity measure index”.
For example, “wherein the first similarity score is determined using a similarity measure index”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner of storing and retrieving information in memory, MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 17, specifically claim 17 recites "iteratively comparing, by a computing system, outputs of different pairs of classification models applied to line item data of a document until a first similarity score between the outputs of a respective pair of classification models exceeds a first threshold” in the context of this claim encompasses the comparing the output models to a strings based. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human identify documents and using data from the documents, comparing the output to a classification model. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 17 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example “and responsive to the first similarity score between outputs of the respective pair of classification models exceeding the threshold, applying, by the computing system, a label corresponding the outputs to the line item data” do 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 are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(f)(i) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “and responsive to the first similarity score between outputs of the respective pair of classification models exceeding the threshold, applying, by the computing system, a label corresponding the outputs to the line item data”.
For example, “and responsive to the first similarity score between outputs of the respective pair of classification models exceeding the threshold, applying, by the computing system, a label corresponding the outputs to the line item data” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 18, specifically claim 18 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 18 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “comprising selecting the label based on a comparison of the outputs of the respective line item data to each string of a plurality of predetermined strings, each string corresponding to a selected label of a plurality of predetermined labels” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “comprising selecting the label based on a comparison of the outputs of the respective line item data to each string of a plurality of predetermined strings, each string corresponding to a selected label of a plurality of predetermined labels”.
For example, “comprising selecting the label based on a comparison of the outputs of the respective line item data to each string of a plurality of predetermined strings, each string corresponding to a selected label of a plurality of predetermined labels”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner of storing and retrieving information in memory, MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 19, specifically claim 19 recites “wherein selecting the label further comprises comparing the outputs of each classification model of the respective pair to each string of plurality of predetermined strings, by the computing system using a fuzzy model” in the context of this claim encompasses the comparing the output models to a string based. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human identify documents and using data from the documents, comparing the output to a classification model. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 19 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 20, specifically claim 20 recites “wherein selecting the label further comprises determining that a second similarity score between the outputs of each classification model of the respective pair to a first string of the plurality of predetermined strings exceeds a second threshold, the second threshold different from the first threshold” in the context of this claim encompasses the comparing the output models to a string based. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human identify documents and using data from the documents, comparing the output to a classification model. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 20 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gusev et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,233,761 (herein as ‘Gusev’). Gusev discloses systems and method for determining a topic cohesion measurement between a content item and a hyperlinked landing page are presented. In one embodiment, a plurality of content item signals is generated for the content item and a corresponding plurality of signals are generated for the hyperlinked landing page. An analysis of the corresponding signals is conducted to determine a measurement of topic cohesion, a topic cohesion score, between the content item and the hyperlinked landing page. A cohesion predictor model is trained to generate the predictive topic cohesion score between an input content item and a hyperlinked landing page. Upon a determination that the topic cohesion score is less than a predetermined threshold, remedial actions are taken regarding the hyperlink of the content item. Alternatively, positive actions may be carried out, including promoting the content item to others, associating advertisements with the content item, and the like.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMAINE A MINCEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5010. The examiner can normally be reached 8am EST until 5pm 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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/JERMAINE A MINCEY/ June 27, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights