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
The instant application having Application No. 19/279,716 has a total 14 claims pending in the application; there are 3 independent claims and 11 dependent claims all of which are ready for examination by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply file on January 8, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-18 have been withdrawn.
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 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
Claim 1, 7 and 11 appears to be directed to an abstract idea without reciting additional limitations that tie it to a practical application or without reciting additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. One can mentally generate graph with nodes for spaces in a building as well as assets that are contained within those spaces. Then one can also mentally associate and classify senor readings and generate relationships between spaces, assets and sensors. The additional limitations are receiving data. These additional limitations are mere data gathering which are insignificant extra solution activities under step 2A prong II and well understood routine and conventional under step 2B (For Berkhiemer See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Versata.)
Step 2A, Prong One: Mathematical Concepts
Independent claims 1, 7, and 11 are directed to processing and task assignment:
Receiving an input document from a document source; performing a content analysis on the input document; extracting metadata from the input document; identifying an identified task type to be performed based on the content analysis. As such this step can be performed mentally.
generating standardized metadata by converting the metadata into a standardized format, storing the standardized metadata in a database; determining a user assignment for the identified task type base on the metadata or the standardized metadata, generating an action item comprising the identified task type, the user assignment user, adding the action item to a task management system. These steps are not improved the function, and it can be performed mentally.
Independent claim 7 directed to automated metadata extraction from digital documents:
receiving an inbound document from a user device; applying an artificial intelligence model to the inbound document to extract metadata, the artificial intelligence model being trained using a training set, the metadata comprising at least one of a document description, a document date, a document number, a bates number, and a security classification; storing the metadata in association with the inbound document in a cloud document database; automatically linking the inbound document to an associated event based on the extracted metadata. As such this step can be performed mentally.
In dependent claim 11 automated action item generation from document annotations:
Receiving an annotation to a document, the annotation comprising NLP; generating a parsed annotation by applying NLP to parse the annotation; automatically generating an action item based on the parsed annotation, the action item comprising an assignee user identified from the user mention, a task description derived from the annotation, and a deadline. This steps can be performed mentally.
Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B
Use of processors to receive, generate, associate, performing, extracting and storing would constitute use of a generic computer used as tool to implement the abstract idea discussed above.
The step of receiving data associated with a building constitutes an insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gather, see MPEP 2106.05(g)
i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989);
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-14 depends on claims 1, 7 and 11 and therefore includes all of the limitations of claims 1, 7 and 11 which is directed to an abstract idea as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rezvani et al (U.S. Pub No. 2021/0064866 A1), and Gabriel et al (U.S .Pub No. 2018/0060505 A1), and further in view of Raw et al (U.S. Pub No. 2020/0058025 A1).
As per claim 1, Rezvani discloses a method for automated document processing and task assignment comprising:
receiving an input document from a document source (par [0023]);
performing a content analysis on the input document (Par [0050,0064]);
extracting metadata from the input document (par [0024, 0063-0065]);
identifying an identified task type to be performed based on the content analysis (par [0004]);
storing the standardized metadata in a database (par [0044, 0065-0066]);
Rezvani disclose determining an assignment for document. Rezvani does not explicitly disclose determining a user assignment for the identified task type based on at least one of the metadata or the standardized metadata, the user assignment comprising an assigned user; generating an action item comprising the identified task type, the user assignment, and the standardized metadata; and adding the action item to a task management system for processing by the assigned user.
However, Gabriel discloses determining a user assignment for the identified task type based on at least one of the metadata or the standardized metadata, the user assignment comprising an assigned user; generating an action item comprising the identified task type, the user assignment, and the standardized metadata (par [0087-0088]); and
adding the action item to a task management system for processing by the assigned user (Par [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate, the features as disclosed in Gabriel into the teaching of Rezvani in order to improve an efficiency of the system (par [0020]).
Rezvani disclose format compatible with the processing system. Rezvani does not explicitly disclose generating standardized metadata by converting the metadata into a standardized JSON format compatible with enterprise processing systems.
However, Raw discloses generating standardized metadata by converting the metadata into a standardized JSON format compatible with enterprise processing systems (Par [0097, 0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate, the features as disclosed in Raw into the teaching of Rezvani as modified by Gabriel to improve a business system (par [0032]).
As per claim 2, Raw discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the database comprises at least one of a NoSQL database and a SQL database (par [0097]).
As per claim 3, Gabriel discloses the method of claim 1 wherein:
the input document comprises an invoice document (par [0017-0018]);
the identified task type comprises a payment processing task;
the metadata comprises at least one of vendor information, payment amount, due date, and account details (par [0021, 0029, 0052] vendor ID); and
the user assignment comprises a user authorized for payment processing tasks (Claim 1).
As per claim 4, Raw discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the standardized metadata is configured for integration with an enterprise accounting system and comprises structured fields corresponding to an internal invoice schema associated with the enterprise accounting systems (Par [0009, 0022]).
As per claim 5, Raw discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: analyzing the metadata to determine a task urgency based on deadline information; and prioritizing the action item in the task management system based on the task urgency (Par [0050, 0105]).
As per claim 6. Raw discloses the method of claim 1 wherein determining the user assignment comprises: analyzing the metadata to identify required processing capabilities; and matching the required processing capabilities with user permissions and roles stored in a user database (Par [0101]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira Moreno et al (U.S Pub No. 2020/0242349), and in view of Pondicherry Murugappan et al (U.S. Pub No. 2020/0111023 A1).
As per claim 7, Ferreira Moreno discloses a method for automated metadata extraction from digital documents comprising:
receiving an inbound document from a user device (par [0004, 0024]);
applying an artificial intelligence model to the inbound document to extract metadata, the artificial intelligence model being trained using a training set, the metadata comprising at least one of a document description, a document date, a document number, a bates number, and a security classification (Par [0004, 0024, 0029]);
storing the metadata in association with the inbound document in a cloud document database (Par [0032]).
automatically linking the inbound document to an associated event based on the extracted metadata (par [0032]).
Ferreira Moreno discloses extracting metadata from inbound documents, Ferreira Moreno does not explicitly disclose applying an artificial intelligence model to the inbound document to extract metadata, the artificial intelligence model being trained using a training set and cloud.
However, Pondicherry Murugappan discloses disclose applying an artificial intelligence model to the inbound document to extract metadata, the artificial intelligence model being trained using a training set, cloud (par [0034, 0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate, the features as disclosed in Pondicherry Murugappan into the teaching of Ferreira Moreno in order to improve an accuracy of the system (par [0037]).
Claim(s) 8, 10is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira Moreno et al and Pondicherry Murugappan et al, and further in view of Gabriel et al (U.S .Pub No. 2018/0060505 A1).
As per claim 8, Ferreira Moreno and Pondicherry Murugappan do not explicitly disclose the method of claim 7 further comprising:
automatically assigning an assigned task to a user based on the associated event and the extracted metadata; and creating an action item for the assigned task, the action item comprising at least one of a task description, an assignee user, and a deadline associated with the associated event.
However, Gabriel discloses automatically assigning an assigned task to a user based on the associated event and the extracted metadata; and creating an action item for the assigned task, the action item comprising at least one of a task description, an assignee user, and a deadline associated with the associated event (par [0087-0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate, the features as disclosed Gabriel in into the teaching of Ferreira Moreno as modified by Pondicherry Murugappan in order to improve an efficiency of the system (par [0020]).
As per claim 10, Gabriel discloses the method of claim 7 wherein the extracted metadata further comprises at least one of a document type classification, source reliability assessment, and usefulness rating (Par [0053, 0057]).
Claim(s) 9is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira Moreno et al and Pondicherry Murugappan et al, and further in view of Di Paolo et al (U.S. Pub No. 2019/0317985 A1).
As per claim 9, Ferreira Moreno and Pondicherry Murugappan do not explicitly disclose the method of claim 7 further comprising: receiving additional documents for inclusion in the training set; updating the artificial intelligence model using the additional documents to produce an updated artificial intelligence model; and improving extraction accuracy of the metadata through the updated artificial intelligence model.
However, Di Paolo discloses receiving additional documents for inclusion in the training set; updating the artificial intelligence model using the additional documents to produce an updated artificial intelligence model; and improving extraction accuracy of the metadata through the updated artificial intelligence model (Par [0027] and claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate, the features as disclosed in Di Paolo into the teaching of Ferreira Moreno as modified by Pondicherry Murugappan in order to improve usability, time consumption and efficiency for user (par [0028]).
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Paolo et al (U.S. Pub No. 2019/0317985 A1), and Akbik et al (U.S. Pub No. 2019/0370333 A1), and further in view of Erickson et al (U.S. Pub No. 2019/0205449 A1).
As per claim 11, Di Paolo discloses a method for automated action item generation from document annotations comprising:
receiving an annotation to a document, the annotation comprising natural language text (par [0020-0021]).
Di Paolo does not explicitly disclose generating a parsed annotation by applying natural language processing to parse the annotation and automatically generating an action item based on the parsed annotation, the action item comprising an assignee user identified from the user, a task description derived from the annotation.
However, Akbik discloses generating a parsed annotation by applying natural language processing to parse the annotation; and automatically generating an action item based on the parsed annotation, the action item comprising an assignee user identified from the user, a task description derived from the annotation (Par [0004-0005, 0018, 0032-0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate, the features as disclosed in Akbik into the teachings of Di Paolo in order to reduces overall labeling cost and maintain annotation quality (Par [0019]).
Di Paolo and Akbik do not explicitly disclose identify at least one of a user mention, a time allocation, and a deadline specification;
an assignee user identified from the user mention, and a deadline derived from the deadline specification; and transmitting the action item to at least one of a project display system, a messaging system, and an email alert system.
However, Erickson discloses identify at least one of a user mention, a time allocation, and a deadline specification; the action item comprising an assignee user identified from the user mention, a task description derived from the annotation, and a deadline derived from the deadline specification; and transmitting the action item to at least one of a project display system, a messaging system, and an email alert system (Par [0016, 0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate, the features as disclosed in Erickson into the teachings of Di Paolo as modified by Akbik in order to process values in a managed system (Par [0001]).
As per claim 12, Erickson discloses the method of claim 11 wherein parsing the annotation comprises identifying syntax patterns including a text string "@user" for user mentions, a text string "#hours" for time allocation, and a text string "#by" for deadline specification (Par [0016, 0033]).
As per claim 13, Di Paolo discloses the method of claim 11 further comprising:
establishing a bidirectional link between the generated action item and the annotation; and enabling navigation from the action item back to the annotation within the document (par [0011-0014]).
As per claim 14, Di Paolo discloses the method of claim 11 wherein the natural language processing further comprises identifying one or more executable commands within the natural language text (par [0015, 0058]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-272-5626. 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.
February 7, 2026
/THU N NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2154