GENERATING PATENT CLAIM CHARTS USING LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS

Application No. 19/367,310

• Filed: Oct 23, 2025
• Priority: Oct 23, 2024 — provisional 63/711,095
• Examiner: O'SHEA, BRENDAN S
• Art Unit: 3626
• Tech Center: 3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
• Assignee: Patlytics Inc.
• OA Round: 1 (Non-Final)

Office Action

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 Objections
Claims 1, 4, 15, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, and 30 are objected to because the claims appears to contain typos and use the word “closet” when the claims should use the word “closest”.
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 12 and 13 use the acronym “RAGAs” without explaining its meaning. Claims 12 and 13 should read (emphasized) “…comprising using one or more RAGAs (Retrieval Augmented Generation Assessment) …”
Claim 15 is objected to because claim 15 appears to contain a typo and should be amended to read (emphasized) “…and generating the claim chart comprising the broader [[of]] or narrower…”
Claim 19 is objected to because claim 19 appears to contain a typo and should be amended to read (emphasized) “…generating a first version [[the]] of claim constructions of the patent and…”
Claim 27 is objected to for two reasons. First, claim 27 is objected to because claim 27 appears to contain a typo and should be amended to read (emphasized) “…generating a first version [[the]] of claim constructions of the patent and…”
Second, claim 27 is objected to because claim 27 appears to repeat itself in the limitations:
…crawling for documentation for one or more prior art references using a broader or a narrower version of the claim constructions stored in the second data structure and a summary of the patent,
crawling for documentation for one or more prior art references using a broader or a narrower version of the claim constructions stored in the second data structure and a summary of the patent…
Claim 27 should be amended to remove the repetitive language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 is objected to because claim 30 appears to repeat itself in the limitations:
…crawling for documentation for one or more prior art references using a broader or a narrower version of the claim constructions stored in the second data structure and a summary of the patent,
crawling for documentation for one or more prior art references using a broader or a narrower version of the claim constructions stored in the second data structure and a summary of the patent…
Claim 30 should be amended to remove the repetitive language. Appropriate correction is required.

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 1-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-40 are directed to a process.

Independent Claim 1
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…retrieving the patent and a file history of the patent and storing the patent and the file history in a data storage,
collecting documentation relating to the patent, data labeling the documentation and storing the documentation in the data storage,
chunking the documentation to generate chunks of documentation comprising content obtained from corresponding portions of the documentation,
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embeddings and related chunks in a vector data structure,
generating a first version of claim constructions of the patent and a summary of the patent by supplying a prompt comprising the patent and the file history to the language model,
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of the first version of the claim constructions,
for each vector embedding of the first version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
retrieving, from the vector data structure, the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
providing the language model the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches, and
using the language model to generate a claim chart comprising the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches.

These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations legal interactions. These limitations encompass legal interactions because these limitations encompass reviewing patent documentation and claims1, construing the claims, and assessing the claims (e.g., for infringement or validity). That is, these limitations are essentially steps in the patent litigation process. Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.

Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
…retrieving the patent and a file history of the patent and storing the patent and the file history in a data storage,
collecting documentation relating to the patent, data labeling the documentation and storing the documentation in the data storage,
chunking the documentation to generate chunks of documentation comprising content obtained from corresponding portions of the documentation,
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embeddings and related chunks in a vector data structure,
generating a first version of claim constructions of the patent and a summary of the patent by supplying a prompt comprising the patent and the file history to the language model,
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of the first version of the claim constructions,
for each vector embedding of the first version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
retrieving, from the vector data structure, the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
providing the language model the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches, and
using the language model to generate a claim chart comprising the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches.

These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First the additional elements of retrieving the patent and a file history, collecting documentation, and retrieving the chunks do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving and storing data (i.e. receiving and storing document data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Second, the additional elements of creating the various vector embeddings, supplying a prompt, identifying matching vectors and using the language model, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., Retrieval-Augmented Generation techniques and machine learning) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.

Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and a general link to a field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception and a general link to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.

Independent Claim 19
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 19 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…providing the patent and a file history of the patent to the language model,
generating a first version the claim constructions of the patent and a summary of the patent by supplying a prompt comprising the patent and the file history to the language model,
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of the first version of the claim constructions,
crawling the internet for documentation on one or more infringing products using the first version of the claim constructions and the summary of the patent,
chunking the documentation for the one or more infringing products to generate chunks of documentation comprising content obtained from corresponding portions of the documentation and storing the chunks of documentation in a vector data structure,
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embedding in the vector data structure,
for each vector embedding of the first version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
providing the language model the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches, and
using the language model to generate the infringement claim chart comprising the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches.

These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations legal interactions. These limitations encompass legal interactions because these limitations encompass reviewing patent documentation and claims2, construing the claims, and assessing the claims (e.g., for infringement or validity). That is, these limitations are essentially steps in the patent litigation process. Claim 19 recites an abstract idea.

Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 19 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
… providing the patent and a file history of the patent to the language model,
generating a first version the claim constructions of the patent and a summary of the patent by supplying a prompt comprising the patent and the file history to the language model,
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of the first version of the claim constructions,
crawling the internet for documentation on one or more infringing products using the first version of the claim constructions and the summary of the patent,
chunking the documentation for the one or more infringing products to generate chunks of documentation comprising content obtained from corresponding portions of the documentation and storing the chunks of documentation in a vector data structure,
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embedding in the vector data structure,
for each vector embedding of the first version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
providing the language model the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches, and
using the language model to generate the infringement claim chart comprising the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches.

These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of providing the various information to the model, supplying a prompt, creating the various vector embeddings, identifying matching vectors and using the language model, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., Retrieval-Augmented Generation techniques and machine learning) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Second, the additional elements of storing and retrieving the chunks do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving and storing data (i.e. receiving and storing document data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Third, the additional elements of crawling the internet, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., web-crawlers) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims. Claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea.

Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Independent claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and a general link to a field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception and a general link to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 19 is not patent eligible.

Independent Claim 23
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 23 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
… providing the patent and a file history of the patent to the language model,
generating a first version of claim constructions of the patent and a summary of the patent by supplying a prompt comprising the patent and the file history to the language model,
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of the first version of the claim constructions,
crawling the internet for documentation on one or more prior art references using the first version of the claim constructions and the summary of the patent,
chunking the documentation for the one or more prior art references to generate a plurality of chunks of documentation comprising content obtained from corresponding portions of the documentation and storing the chunks of documentation in a vector data structure,
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embeddings in the vector data structure,
for each vector embedding of the first version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
providing the language model the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches, and
using the language model to generate the validity claim chart comprising the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches.

These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations legal interactions. These limitations encompass legal interactions because these limitations encompass reviewing patent documentation and claims3, construing the claims, and assessing the claims (e.g., for infringement or validity). That is, these limitations are essentially steps in the patent litigation process. Claim 23 recites an abstract idea.

Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 23 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
…providing the patent and a file history of the patent to the language model,
generating a first version of claim constructions of the patent and a summary of the patent by supplying a prompt comprising the patent and the file history to the language model,
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of the first version of the claim constructions,
crawling the internet for documentation on one or more prior art references using the first version of the claim constructions and the summary of the patent,
chunking the documentation for the one or more prior art references to generate a plurality of chunks of documentation comprising content obtained from corresponding portions of the documentation and storing the chunks of documentation in a vector data structure,
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embeddings in the vector data structure,
for each vector embedding of the first version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
providing the language model the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches, and
using the language model to generate the validity claim chart comprising the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches.

These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of providing the various information to the model, supplying a prompt, creating the various vector embeddings, identifying matching vectors and using the language model, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., Retrieval-Augmented Generation techniques and machine learning) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Second, the additional elements of storing and retrieving the chunks do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving and storing data (i.e. receiving and storing document data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Third, the additional elements of crawling the internet, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., web-crawlers) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims. Claim 23 is directed to an abstract idea.

Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Independent claim 23 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and a general link to a field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception and a general link to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 23 is not patent eligible.

Independent Claim 27
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 27 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…providing the patent and a file history of the patent to the language model,
generating a first version the claim constructions of the patent and a summary of the patent by supplying a prompt comprising the patent and the file history to the language model,
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of a first version of the claim constructions,
crawling for documentation on one or more prior art references using the first version of the claim constructions and the summary of the patent,
crawling for documentation on one or more infringing products using the first version of the claim constructions and the summary of the patent,
chunking the documentation to generate a plurality of chunks of documentation comprising content obtained from corresponding portions of the documentation and storing the chunks of documentation in a vector data structure,
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embeddings in the vector data structure,
for each vector embedding of the first version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
providing the language model the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches,
using the language model to generate a first version of a validity claim chart and a second version of an infringement chart comprising the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches,
generating a plurality of the claim constructions that are narrower than the first version,
generating a plurality of the claim constructions that are broader than the first version,
storing in a second data structure the plurality of versions of the claim constructions so that each of the versions is retrievable,
crawling for documentation for one or more prior art references using a broader or a narrower version of the claim constructions stored in the second data structure and a summary of the patent,
crawling for documentation for one or more prior art references using a broader or a narrower version of the claim constructions stored in the second data structure and a summary of the patent,
chunking the documentation for the one or more infringing products to generate a second plurality of chunks of documentation comprising content obtained from corresponding portions of the documentation and storing the second plurality of chunks of documentation in the vector data structure,
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embedding in the vector data structure,
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions,
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
for each vector embedding of the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
providing to the language model the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings of the closet matches,
generating a second version of the validity claim chart and a second version of the infringement chart comprising the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches, and
determining the patent claim construction that provides the highest probability of infringement and lowest probability of invalidating a patent.

These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations legal interactions. These limitations encompass legal interactions because these limitations encompass reviewing patent documentation and claims4, construing the claims in different ways, and assessing the claims to identify the most advantageous interpretations (e.g., for infringement and validity). That is, these limitations are essentially steps in the patent litigation process. Claim 27 recites an abstract idea.

Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 27 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
…providing the patent and a file history of the patent to the language model,
generating a first version the claim constructions of the patent and a summary of the patent by supplying a prompt comprising the patent and the file history to the language model,
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of a first version of the claim constructions,
crawling for documentation on one or more prior art references using the first version of the claim constructions and the summary of the patent,
crawling for documentation on one or more infringing products using the first version of the claim constructions and the summary of the patent,
chunking the documentation to generate a plurality of chunks of documentation comprising content obtained from corresponding portions of the documentation and storing the chunks of documentation in a vector data structure,
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embeddings in the vector data structure,
for each vector embedding of the first version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
providing the language model the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches,
using the language model to generate a first version of a validity claim chart and a second version of an infringement chart comprising the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches,
generating a plurality of the claim constructions that are narrower than the first version,
generating a plurality of the claim constructions that are broader than the first version,
storing in a second data structure the plurality of versions of the claim constructions so that each of the versions is retrievable,
crawling for documentation for one or more prior art references using a broader or a narrower version of the claim constructions stored in the second data structure and a summary of the patent,
crawling for documentation for one or more prior art references using a broader or a narrower version of the claim constructions stored in the second data structure and a summary of the patent,
chunking the documentation for the one or more infringing products to generate a second plurality of chunks of documentation comprising content obtained from corresponding portions of the documentation and storing the second plurality of chunks of documentation in the vector data structure,
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embedding in the vector data structure,
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions,
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
for each vector embedding of the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
providing to the language model the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings of the closet matches,
generating a second version of the validity claim chart and a second version of the infringement chart comprising the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches, and
determining the patent claim construction that provides the highest probability of infringement and lowest probability of invalidating a patent.

These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of providing the various information to the model, supplying a prompt, creating the various vector embeddings, identifying matching vectors and using the language model, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., Retrieval-Augmented Generation techniques and machine learning) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Second, the additional elements of storing and retrieving the chunks do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving and storing data (i.e. receiving and storing document data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Third, the additional elements of crawling the internet, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., web-crawlers) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims. Claim 27 is directed to an abstract idea.

Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Independent claim 27 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and a general link to a field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception and a general link to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 27 is not patent eligible.

Independent Claim 30
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 30 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…providing the patent and a file history of the patent to the language model,
generating a first version of claim constructions of the patent and a summary of the patent by supplying a prompt comprising the patent and the file history to the language model,
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of a first version of the claim constructions,
crawling for documentation on one or more prior art references using the first version of the claim constructions and the summary of the patent,
crawling for documentation on one or more infringing products using the first version of the claim constructions and the summary of the patent,
chunking the documentation to generate a plurality of chunks of documentation comprising content obtained from corresponding portions of the documentation and storing the chunks of documentation in a vector data structure,
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embeddings in the vector data structure,
for each vector embedding of the first version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
providing the language model the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches, and
using the language model to generate a first version of a validity claim chart and a second version of an infringement chart comprising the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches,
generating a plurality of the claim constructions that are narrower than the first version,
generating a plurality of the claim constructions that are broader than the first version,
storing in a second data structure the plurality of versions of the claim constructions so that each of the versions is retrievable,
crawling for documentation for one or more prior art references using a broader or a narrower version of the claim constructions stored in the second data structure and a summary of the patent,
crawling for documentation for one or more prior art references using a broader or a narrower version of the claim constructions stored in the second data structure and a summary of the patent,
chunking the documentation for the one or more infringing products and storing the chunks of documentation in the vector data structure,
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embedding in the vector data structure,
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions,
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
for each vector embedding of the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
providing to the language model the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings of the closet matches,
generating a second version of the validity claim chart and a second version of the infringement chart comprising the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches, and
determining the patent claim construction that provides the lowest probability of infringement and highest probability of invalidating a patent.

These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations legal interactions. These limitations encompass legal interactions because these limitations encompass reviewing patent documentation and claims5, construing the claims in different ways, and assessing the claims to identify the most advantageous interpretations (e.g., for infringement and validity). That is, these limitations are essentially steps in the patent litigation process. Claim 30 recites an abstract idea.

Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 30 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
…providing the patent and a file history of the patent to the language model,
generating a first version of claim constructions of the patent and a summary of the patent by supplying a prompt comprising the patent and the file history to the language model,
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of a first version of the claim constructions,
crawling for documentation on one or more prior art references using the first version of the claim constructions and the summary of the patent,
crawling for documentation on one or more infringing products using the first version of the claim constructions and the summary of the patent,
chunking the documentation to generate a plurality of chunks of documentation comprising content obtained from corresponding portions of the documentation and storing the chunks of documentation in a vector data structure,
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embeddings in the vector data structure,
for each vector embedding of the first version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
providing the language model the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches, and
using the language model to generate a first version of a validity claim chart and a second version of an infringement chart comprising the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches,
generating a plurality of the claim constructions that are narrower than the first version,
generating a plurality of the claim constructions that are broader than the first version,
storing in a second data structure the plurality of versions of the claim constructions so that each of the versions is retrievable,
crawling for documentation for one or more prior art references using a broader or a narrower version of the claim constructions stored in the second data structure and a summary of the patent,
crawling for documentation for one or more prior art references using a broader or a narrower version of the claim constructions stored in the second data structure and a summary of the patent,
chunking the documentation for the one or more infringing products and storing the second plurality of chunks of documentation in the vector data structure,
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embedding in the vector data structure,
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions,
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
for each vector embedding of the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches,
providing to the language model the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings of the closet matches,
generating a second version of the validity claim chart and a second version of the infringement chart comprising the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches, and
determining the patent claim construction that provides the lowest probability of infringement and highest probability of invalidating a patent.

These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of providing the various information to the model, supplying a prompt, creating the various vector embeddings, identifying matching vectors and using the language model, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., Retrieval-Augmented Generation techniques and machine learning) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Second, the additional elements of storing and retrieving the chunks do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving and storing data (i.e. receiving and storing document data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Third, the additional elements of crawling the internet, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., web-crawlers) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims. Claim 30 is directed to an abstract idea.

Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
Independent claim 30 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and a general link to a field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception and a general link to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 30 is not patent eligible.

Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea for the following reasons.

Claims 2 and 3 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because generating infringement and validity charts is a part of the patent litigation process.

Claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea because claim 4 essentially repeats various steps of claim 1 but for a second claim construction. Accordingly claim 4 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.

Claims 5-7 and 20 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because generating narrower and broader claim constructions is a part of the patent litigation process.
Claim 20 further recites the additional elements of storing the claim constructions. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving and storing data (i.e. receiving and storing document data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).

Claims 8, 9 and 16 recite the additional elements of embedding and storing the claim constructions in various structures. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., machine learning techniques) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.

Claims 10-14, 17, 18, 29 and 32 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because ranking the chunks (e.g., the information in the prior art or potentially infringing products) to generate infringement and validity charts is a part of the patent litigation process (e.g., identifying the most relevant documentation).
Claims 13 and 14 further recite the additional elements of using RAGAs strategies. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., machine learning and large language model techniques) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.

Claim 15 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea first because claim 15 essentially repeats various steps of claim 1 but using a broader or narrower claim construction. These limitations are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
Second, claim 15 further recites the additional elements of crawling the internet. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., web-crawlers) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.

Claims 20 and 24 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because generating narrower and broader claim constructions is a part of the patent litigation process.
Claims 20 and 24 further recite the additional elements of storing the claim constructions. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving and storing data (i.e. receiving and storing document data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).

Claims 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea because claims 21 and 25 essentially repeats various steps of claims 19 and 23 but for a broader or narrower claim construction. Accordingly claims 21 and 25 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 19 and 23.

Claims 22, 26, 28 and 31 recites the additional elements of storing the claim constructions in various formats. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of receiving and storing data (i.e. receiving and storing document data), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).

Claims 33-40 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because claims 33-40 recite various types of chunking.6

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 (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 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.

Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 15, 16, 19, 23, and 33-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hancock, US Pub. No. 2020/0050638, herein referred to as “Hancock”.
Regarding claim 1, Hancock teaches:
retrieving the patent and a file history of the patent and storing the patent and the file history in a data storage (obtains references for target patent including a manual prior art search, references cited during prosecution and targeted patent from storage, ¶¶[0065]-[0066]),
collecting documentation relating to the patent, data labeling the documentation and storing the documentation in the data storage (obtains references for target patent including a manual prior art search, references cited during prosecution, product documentation for an accused instrumentality or a prospective patentable invention, and targeted patent from storage, ¶¶[0065]-[0066]; see also ¶¶[0066], [0084], [0112] discussing generating queries based on patent metadata),
chunking the documentation to generate chunks of documentation comprising content obtained from corresponding portions of the documentation (indexer extracts data by splitting text into a particular type of lexical unit, such as into paragraphs, sentences and components of sentences (e.g. a component of a parsed syntax tree, such as a noun chunk), ¶[0095]; see also ¶[0081] discussing extracting keywords and phrases),
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embeddings and related chunks in a vector data structure (converts documentation into vector space model, ¶¶[0128], [0136], [0137] and stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]),
generating a first version of claim constructions of the patent (generates synonyms for textual data, e.g., ¶¶[0106]-[0107], [0113])
and a summary of the patent by supplying a prompt comprising the patent and the file history to the language model (summarizes the search document, ¶¶[0162]-[0163]; see also e.g., ¶¶[0073], [0095] discussing natural language processing),
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of the first version of the claim constructions, for each vector embedding of the first version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure (uses Word2Vec and vector space word embeddings to generate synonyms for textual data, e.g., ¶¶[0104], [0106]; see also ¶[0066] discussing analyzing claim language)
identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶¶[0115], [0176]),
retrieving, from the vector data structure, the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶[0115], [0176]),
providing the language model the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches, and using the language model to generate a claim chart comprising the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches (generates report for the claims on the match of the relevant documents including an infringement/patentability documents to include in a chart, ¶¶[0159], [0161]; see also Figs. 11, 12 showing examples of charts and e.g., ¶¶[0195]-[0197] discussing charts).
Regarding claim 2, Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
generating an infringement claim chart wherein the documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches is product documentation of infringing products (generates report for the claims on the match of the relevant documents including an infringement documents to include in a chart, ¶¶[0159], [0161]; see also Figs. 11, 12 showing examples of charts and e.g., ¶¶[0195]-[0197] discussing charts).
Regarding claim 3, Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
generating a validity claim chart wherein the documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches is prior art documentation (generates report for the claims on the match of the relevant documents including an patentability documents to include in a chart, ¶¶[0159], [0161]; see also Figs. 11, 12 showing examples of charts and e.g., ¶¶[0195]-[0197] discussing charts).
Regarding claim 4 Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
generating a second version of the claim constructions (repeats process for reference documents in multiple, different languages, ¶[0074]),
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of the second version of the claim constructions, for each vector embedding of the second version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure (uses Word2Vec and vector space word embeddings to generate synonyms for textual data, e.g., ¶¶[0104], [0106]; see also ¶[0066] discussing analyzing claim language),
identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶¶[0115], [0176]),
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶[0115], [0176]),
providing the language model the second version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches, and using the language model to generate a claim chart comprising the second version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches (generates report for the claims on the match of the relevant documents including an infringement/patentability documents to include in a chart, ¶¶[0159], [0161]; see also Figs. 11, 12 showing examples of charts and e.g., ¶¶[0195]-[0197] discussing charts).

Regarding claim 6 Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 4 and further teaches:
wherein the second version of the claim constructions is broader than the first version of the claim constructions (generates synonyms with broader technical terms, ¶[0079]).
Regarding claim 7 Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
generating a plurality of versions of the claim constructions, wherein the plurality of versions of the claim constructions are broader or narrower than the first version (generates synonyms with broader technical terms, ¶[0079]).
Regarding claim 8 Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 7 and further teaches:
embedding the plurality of versions of the claim constructions (generates embeddings, ¶¶[0135]-[0136]);
and storing the embeddings of the plurality of versions of the claim constructions in the vector data structure (stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]).
Regarding claim 9 Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 8 and further teaches:
using a graph, tree or table structure for storing in the vector database the embeddings of the plurality of versions of the claim constructions (uses graph databases, ¶[0048]).
Regarding claim 10 Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
ranking the chunks of documentation (computes scores for each limitation, ¶¶[0176]-[0177]; see also ¶[0147] discussing scoring words).
Regarding claim 11 Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 10 and further teaches:
using one or more assessment strategies to rank the chunks of documentation (computes scores for each limitation, ¶¶[0176]-[0177]; see also ¶¶[0131], [0147] discussing TF-IDF strategy).

Regarding claim 15 Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 7 and further teaches:
crawling the internet for documentation (searches internet, e.g., ¶[0083])
using a broader or a narrower version of the claim constructions stored in the vector data structure and a summary of the patent (generates synonyms with broader technical terms, ¶[0079]),
chunking the documentation (indexer extracts data by splitting text into a particular type of lexical unit, such as into paragraphs, sentences and components of sentences (e.g. a component of a parsed syntax tree, such as a noun chunk), ¶[0095]; see also ¶[0081] discussing extracting keywords and phrases),
and storing the chunks of documentation in the vector data structure (stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]),
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embedding in the vector data structure (converts documentation into vector space model, ¶¶[0128], [0136], [0137] and stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]),
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions (uses Word2Vec and vector space word embeddings to generate synonyms for textual data, e.g., ¶¶[0104], [0106]; see also ¶[0066] discussing analyzing claim language),
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶¶[0115], [0176]),
for each vector embedding of the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶[0115], [0176]),,
providing to the language model the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings of the closet matches, and generating the claim chart comprising the broader of narrower version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches (generates report for the claims on the match of the relevant documents including an infringement/patentability documents to include in a chart, ¶¶[0159], [0161]; see also Figs. 11, 12 showing examples of charts and e.g., ¶¶[0195]-[0197] discussing charts).
Regarding claim 16 Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 7 and further teaches:
wherein the step of storing the plurality of versions of the claim constructions in a second data structure comprises storing the plurality of versions of the claim constructions in a tree, graph or table data structure (uses graph databases, ¶[0048]).

Regarding claim 19, Hancock teaches:
providing the patent and a file history of the patent to the language model (obtains references for target patent including a manual prior art search, references cited during prosecution and targeted patent from storage, ¶¶[0065]-[0066]),
generating a first version the claim constructions of the patent (generates synonyms for textual data, e.g., ¶¶[0106]-[0107], [0113])
and a summary of the patent by supplying a prompt comprising the patent and the file history to the language model (summarizes the search document, ¶¶[0162]-[0163]; see also e.g., ¶¶[0073], [0095] discussing natural language processing),
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of the first version of the claim constructions (uses Word2Vec and vector space word embeddings to generate synonyms for textual data, e.g., ¶¶[0104], [0106]; see also ¶[0066] discussing analyzing claim language),
crawling the internet for documentation on one or more infringing products using the first version of the claim constructions and the summary of the patent (searches internet, e.g., ¶[0083]; see also ¶[0036] noting references includes documents describing or illustrating a device or instrumentality accused of infringement),
chunking the documentation for the one or more infringing products to generate chunks of documentation comprising content obtained from corresponding portions of the documentation and storing the chunks of documentation in a vector data structure (indexer extracts data by splitting text into a particular type of lexical unit, such as into paragraphs, sentences and components of sentences (e.g. a component of a parsed syntax tree, such as a noun chunk), ¶[0095]; see also ¶[0081] discussing extracting keywords and phrases; and stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]),
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embedding in the vector data structure (converts documentation into vector space model, ¶¶[0128], [0136], [0137] and stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]),
for each vector embedding of the first version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶¶[0115], [0176]),
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶[0115], [0176]),
providing the language model the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches, and using the language model to generate the infringement claim chart comprising the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches (generates report for the claims on the match of the relevant documents including an infringement documents to include in a chart, ¶¶[0159], [0161]; see also Figs. 11, 12 showing examples of charts and e.g., ¶¶[0195]-[0197] discussing charts).

Regarding claim 23, Hancock teaches:
providing the patent and a file history of the patent to the language model (obtains references for target patent including a manual prior art search, references cited during prosecution and targeted patent from storage, ¶¶[0065]-[0066]),
generating a first version of claim constructions of the patent (generates synonyms for textual data, e.g., ¶¶[0106]-[0107], [0113])
and a summary of the patent by supplying a prompt comprising the patent and the file history to the language model (summarizes the search document, ¶¶[0162]-[0163]; see also e.g., ¶¶[0073], [0095] discussing natural language processing),
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of the first version of the claim constructions (uses Word2Vec and vector space word embeddings to generate synonyms for textual data, e.g., ¶¶[0104], [0106]; see also ¶[0066] discussing analyzing claim language),
crawling the internet for documentation on one or more prior art references using the first version of the claim constructions and the summary of the patent (searches internet, e.g., ¶[0083]; see also ¶[0036] noting references includes published patents and published patent applications),
chunking the documentation for the one or more infringing products to generate a plurality of chunks of documentation comprising content obtained from corresponding portions of the documentation and storing the chunks of documentation in a vector data structure (indexer extracts data by splitting text into a particular type of lexical unit, such as into paragraphs, sentences and components of sentences (e.g. a component of a parsed syntax tree, such as a noun chunk), ¶[0095]; see also ¶[0081] discussing extracting keywords and phrases),
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embedding in the vector data structure (converts documentation into vector space model, ¶¶[0128], [0136], [0137] and stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]),
for each vector embedding of the first version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶¶[0115], [0176]),
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶[0115], [0176]),
providing the language model the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches, and using the language model to generate the validity claim chart comprising the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches (generates report for the claims on the match of the relevant documents including an patentability documents to include in a chart, ¶¶[0159], [0161]; see also Figs. 11, 12 showing examples of charts and e.g., ¶¶[0195]-[0197] discussing charts).

Regarding claim 33, Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein chunking the documentation comprises performing semantic chunking or hierarchical chunking (indexer extracts data by splitting text into a particular type of lexical unit, such as into paragraphs, sentences and components of sentences (e.g. a component of a parsed syntax tree, such as a noun chunk), ¶[0095]).
Regarding claim 34, Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein hierarchical chunking comprises receiving sections of the documentation, identified based on section headings, as chunks of the chunks, and wherein semantic chunking comprises receiving sentences or paragraphs of the documentation as chunks of the chunks (indexer extracts data by splitting text into a particular type of lexical unit, such as into paragraphs, sentences and components of sentences (e.g. a component of a parsed syntax tree, such as a noun chunk), ¶[0095]).
Regarding claim 35, Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 19 and further teaches:
wherein chunking the documentation comprises performing semantic chunking or hierarchical chunking (indexer extracts data by splitting text into a particular type of lexical unit, such as into paragraphs, sentences and components of sentences (e.g. a component of a parsed syntax tree, such as a noun chunk), ¶[0095]).
Regarding claim 36, Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 35 and further teaches:
wherein hierarchical chunking comprises receiving sections of the documentation, identified based on section headings, as chunks of the chunks, and wherein semantic chunking comprises receiving sentences or paragraphs of the documentation as chunks of the chunks (indexer extracts data by splitting text into a particular type of lexical unit, such as into paragraphs, sentences and components of sentences (e.g. a component of a parsed syntax tree, such as a noun chunk), ¶[0095]).
Regarding claim 37, Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 23 and further teaches:
wherein chunking the documentation comprises performing semantic chunking or hierarchical chunking (indexer extracts data by splitting text into a particular type of lexical unit, such as into paragraphs, sentences and components of sentences (e.g. a component of a parsed syntax tree, such as a noun chunk), ¶[0095]).
Regarding claim 38, Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 37 and further teaches:
wherein hierarchical chunking comprises receiving sections of the documentation, identified based on section headings, as chunks of the chunks, and wherein semantic chunking comprises receiving sentences or paragraphs of the documentation as chunks of the chunks (indexer extracts data by splitting text into a particular type of lexical unit, such as into paragraphs, sentences and components of sentences (e.g. a component of a parsed syntax tree, such as a noun chunk), ¶[0095]).

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.

Claim(s) 5, 20-22, 24-26, 27-32, 39 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock in view of Ford, Roger Allan. "Patent invalidity versus noninfringement." Cornell L. Rev. 99 (2013): 71, herein referred to as “Ford”.
Regarding claim 5, Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 4 and does not teach but Ford does teach:
wherein the second version of the claim constructions is narrower than the first version of the claim constructions (creates narrower claim constructions to support noninfringement arguments, pgs. 95-99).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the analysis of the validity or infringement of patent claims of Hancock with the consideration of claim construction of Ford because Ford suggests considering narrow claim construction as they are better for noninfringement arguments, pg. 95; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.

Regarding claim 20, Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 19 and further teaches:
generating a plurality of the claim constructions that are broader than the first version (generates synonyms with broader technical terms, ¶[0079]),
and storing in a second data structure the plurality of versions of the claim constructions so that each of the versions is retrievable (converts documentation into vector space model, ¶¶[0128], [0136], [0137] and stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]).
However Hancock does not teach but Ford does teach
generating a plurality of the claim constructions that are narrower than the first version (creates narrower claim constructions to support noninfringement arguments, pgs. 95-99).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the analysis of the validity or infringement of patent claims of Hancock with the consideration of claim construction of Ford because Ford suggests considering narrow claim construction as they are better for noninfringement arguments, pg. 95; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 21 the combination of Hancock and Ford teaches all the limitations of claim 20 and Hancock further teaches:
crawling the internet for documentation for one or more infringing products (searches internet, e.g., ¶[0083]; see also ¶[0036] noting references includes documents describing or illustrating a device or instrumentality accused of infringement),
using a broader or a narrower version of the claim constructions stored in the vector data structure and a summary of the patent (generates synonyms with broader technical terms, ¶[0079]),
chunking the documentation for the one or more infringing products (indexer extracts data by splitting text into a particular type of lexical unit, such as into paragraphs, sentences and components of sentences (e.g. a component of a parsed syntax tree, such as a noun chunk), ¶[0095]; see also ¶[0081] discussing extracting keywords and phrases),
and storing the chunks of documentation in the vector data structure (stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]),
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embedding in the vector data structure (converts documentation into vector space model, ¶¶[0128], [0136], [0137] and stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]),
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions (uses Word2Vec and vector space word embeddings to generate synonyms for textual data, e.g., ¶¶[0104], [0106]; see also ¶[0066] discussing analyzing claim language),
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶¶[0115], [0176]),
for each vector embedding of the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶[0115], [0176]),,
providing to the language model the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings of the closet matches, and generating the infringement claim chart with the broader or narrower version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches (generates report for the claims on the match of the relevant documents including an infringement/patentability documents to include in a chart, ¶¶[0159], [0161]; see also Figs. 11, 12 showing examples of charts and e.g., ¶¶[0195]-[0197] discussing charts).
Regarding claim 22 the combination of Hancock and Ford teaches all the limitations of claim 20 and Hancock further teaches:
wherein the step of storing the plurality of versions of the claim constructions in a vector data structure comprises storing the plurality of versions of the claim constructions in a graph, tree or table data structure (uses graph databases, ¶[0048]).

Regarding claim 24, Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 19 and further teaches:
generating a plurality of the claim constructions that are broader than the first version (generates synonyms with broader technical terms, ¶[0079]),
and storing in a second data structure the plurality of versions of the claim constructions so that each of the versions is retrievable (converts documentation into vector space model, ¶¶[0128], [0136], [0137] and stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]).
However Hancock does not teach but Ford does teach
generating a plurality of the claim constructions that are narrower than the first version (creates narrower claim constructions to support noninfringement arguments, pgs. 95-99).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the analysis of the validity or infringement of patent claims of Hancock with the consideration of claim construction of Ford because Ford suggests considering narrow claim construction as they are better for noninfringement arguments, pg. 95; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 25 the combination of Hancock and Ford teaches all the limitations of claim 24 and Hancock further teaches:
crawling the internet for documentation for one or more prior art references (searches internet, e.g., ¶[0083]; see also ¶[0036] noting references includes prior art references)
using a broader or a narrower version of the claim constructions stored in the vector data structure and a summary of the patent (generates synonyms with broader technical terms, ¶[0079]),
chunking the documentation for the one or more infringing products to generate a second plurality of chunks of documentation comprising content obtained from corresponding portions of the documentation (indexer extracts data by splitting text into a particular type of lexical unit, such as into paragraphs, sentences and components of sentences (e.g. a component of a parsed syntax tree, such as a noun chunk), ¶[0095]; see also ¶[0081] discussing extracting keywords and phrases; and ¶[0036] noting refences include documents about potential infringements),
and storing the chunks of documentation in the vector data structure (stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]),
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embedding in the vector data structure (converts documentation into vector space model, ¶¶[0128], [0136], [0137] and stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]),
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions (uses Word2Vec and vector space word embeddings to generate synonyms for textual data, e.g., ¶¶[0104], [0106]; see also ¶[0066] discussing analyzing claim language),
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶¶[0115], [0176]),
for each vector embedding of the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶[0115], [0176]),,
providing to the language model the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings of the closet matches, and generating the validity claim chart comprising the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches (generates report for the claims on the match of the relevant documents including an infringement/patentability documents to include in a chart, ¶¶[0159], [0161]; see also Figs. 11, 12 showing examples of charts and e.g., ¶¶[0195]-[0197] discussing charts).
Regarding claim 26 the combination of Hancock and Ford teaches all the limitations of claim 24 and Hancock further teaches:
wherein the step of storing the plurality of versions of the claim constructions in a second data structure comprises storing the plurality of versions of the claim constructions in a tree, graph or table data structure (uses graph databases, ¶[0048]).

Regarding claim 27, Hancock teaches:
providing the patent and a file history of the patent to the language model (obtains references for target patent including a manual prior art search, references cited during prosecution and targeted patent from storage, ¶¶[0065]-[0066]),
generating a first version the claim constructions of the patent (generates synonyms for textual data, e.g., ¶¶[0106]-[0107], [0113])
and a summary of the patent by supplying a prompt comprising the patent and the file history to the language model (summarizes the search document, ¶¶[0162]-[0163]; see also e.g., ¶¶[0073], [0095] discussing natural language processing),
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of a first version of the claim constructions (uses Word2Vec and vector space word embeddings to generate synonyms for textual data, e.g., ¶¶[0104], [0106]; see also ¶[0066] discussing analyzing claim language),
crawling for documentation on one or more prior art references using the first version of the claim constructions and the summary of the patent (searches internet, e.g., ¶[0083]; see also ¶[0036] noting references includes published patents and published patent applications),
crawling for documentation on one or more infringing products using the first version of the claim constructions and the summary of the patent (searches internet, e.g., ¶[0083]; see also ¶[0036] noting references includes documents describing or illustrating a device or instrumentality accused of infringement),
chunking the documentation to generate a plurality of chunks of documentation comprising content obtained from corresponding portions of the documentation and storing the chunks of documentation in a vector data structure (indexer extracts data by splitting text into a particular type of lexical unit, such as into paragraphs, sentences and components of sentences (e.g. a component of a parsed syntax tree, such as a noun chunk), ¶[0095]; see also ¶[0081] discussing extracting keywords and phrases; and stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]),
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embeddings in the vector data structure (converts documentation into vector space model, ¶¶[0128], [0136], [0137] and stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]),
for each vector embedding of the first version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶¶[0115], [0176]),
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶[0115], [0176]),
providing the language model the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches, using the language model to generate a first version of a validity claim chart and a second version of an infringement chart comprising the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches (generates report for the claims on the match of the relevant documents including an infringement documents to include in a chart, ¶¶[0159], [0161]; see also Figs. 11, 12 showing examples of charts and e.g., ¶¶[0195]-[0197] discussing charts),
generating a plurality of the claim constructions that are broader than the first version (generates synonyms with broader technical terms, ¶[0079]),
storing in a second data structure the plurality of versions of the claim constructions so that each of the versions is retrievable (converts documentation into vector space model, ¶¶[0128], [0136], [0137] and stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]),
crawling for documentation for one or more prior art references using a broader or a narrower version of the claim constructions stored in the second data structure and a summary of the patent (searches internet, e.g., ¶[0083]; see also ¶[0036] noting references includes published patents and published patent applications),
crawling for documentation for one or more prior art references using a broader or a narrower version of the claim constructions stored in the second data structure and a summary of the patent (searches internet, e.g., ¶[0083]; see also ¶[0036] noting references includes published patents and published patent applications),
chunking the documentation for the one or more infringing products to generate a second plurality of chunks of documentation comprising content obtained from corresponding portions of the documentation (indexer extracts data by splitting text into a particular type of lexical unit, such as into paragraphs, sentences and components of sentences (e.g. a component of a parsed syntax tree, such as a noun chunk), ¶[0095]; see also ¶[0081] discussing extracting keywords and phrases; and ¶[0074] discussing repeating process for reference documents in multiple, different languages,
and storing the second plurality of chunks of documentation in the vector data structure (converts documentation into vector space model, ¶¶[0128], [0136], [0137] and stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]),
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embedding in the vector data structure (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶¶[0115], [0176]),
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions (uses Word2Vec and vector space word embeddings to generate synonyms for textual data, e.g., ¶¶[0104], [0106]; see also ¶[0066] discussing analyzing claim language),
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches, for each vector embedding of the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶[0115], [0176]),
providing to the language model the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings of the closet matches, generating a second version of the validity claim chart and a second version of the infringement chart comprising the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches (generates report for the claims on the match of the relevant documents including an infringement/patentability documents to include in a chart, ¶¶[0159], [0161]; see also Figs. 11, 12 showing examples of charts and e.g., ¶¶[0195]-[0197] discussing charts).
However Hancock does not teach but Ford does teach:
generating a plurality of the claim constructions that are narrower than the first version (creates narrower claim constructions to support noninfringement arguments, pgs. 95-99),
and determining the patent claim construction that provides the highest probability of infringement and lowest probability of invalidating a patent (analyses trade-offs of narrow and broad claim constructions, pgs. 94-100 and 102-109).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the analysis of the validity or infringement of patent claims of Hancock with the consideration of claim construction of Ford because Ford suggests considering narrower and broader claim constructions as they are better or worse for noninfringement and validity arguments, pg. 95; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 28 the combination of Hancock and Ford teaches all the limitations of claim 27 and Hancock further teaches:
wherein the step of storing the plurality of versions of the claim constructions in a second data structure comprises storing the plurality of versions of the claim constructions in a tree, graph or table data structure (uses graph databases, ¶[0048]).
Regarding claim 29 the combination of Hancock and Ford teaches all the limitations of claim 27 and Hancock further teaches:
and storing each of the versions of the infringement claim charts and validity claim charts in a second data structure (stores data in various formats, e.g., ¶[0056])
However Hancock does not teach but Ford does teach:
ranking the patent claim constructions in order of the highest probability of infringement and lowest probability of invalidating the patent (analyses trade-offs of narrow and broad claim constructions for noninfringement and validity arguments, pgs. 94-100 and 102-109).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the analysis of the validity or infringement of patent claims of Hancock with the consideration of claim construction of Ford because Ford suggests considering narrower and broader claim constructions as they are better or worse for noninfringement and validity arguments, pg. 95; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.

Regarding claim 30, Hancock teaches:
providing the patent and a file history of the patent to the language model (obtains references for target patent including a manual prior art search, references cited during prosecution and targeted patent from storage, ¶¶[0065]-[0066]),
generating a first version of claim constructions of the patent (generates synonyms for textual data, e.g., ¶¶[0106]-[0107], [0113])
and a summary of the patent by supplying a prompt comprising the patent and the file history to the language model (summarizes the search document, ¶¶[0162]-[0163]; see also e.g., ¶¶[0073], [0095] discussing natural language processing),
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of a first version of the claim constructions (uses Word2Vec and vector space word embeddings to generate synonyms for textual data, e.g., ¶¶[0104], [0106]; see also ¶[0066] discussing analyzing claim language),
crawling for documentation on one or more prior art references using the first version of the claim constructions and the summary of the patent (searches internet, e.g., ¶[0083]; see also ¶[0036] noting references includes published patents and published patent applications),
crawling for documentation on one or more infringing products using the first version of the claim constructions and the summary of the patent (searches internet, e.g., ¶[0083]; see also ¶[0036] noting references includes documents describing or illustrating a device or instrumentality accused of infringement),
chunking the documentation to generate a plurality of chunks of documentation comprising content obtained from corresponding portions of the documentation and storing the chunks of documentation in a vector data structure (indexer extracts data by splitting text into a particular type of lexical unit, such as into paragraphs, sentences and components of sentences (e.g. a component of a parsed syntax tree, such as a noun chunk), ¶[0095]; see also ¶[0081] discussing extracting keywords and phrases; and stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]),
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embeddings in the vector data structure (converts documentation into vector space model, ¶¶[0128], [0136], [0137] and stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]),
for each vector embedding of the first version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶¶[0115], [0176]),
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶[0115], [0176]),
providing the language model the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches, and using the language model to generate a first version of a validity claim chart and a second version of an infringement chart comprising the first version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches (generates report for the claims on the match of the relevant documents including an infringement documents to include in a chart, ¶¶[0159], [0161]; see also Figs. 11, 12 showing examples of charts and e.g., ¶¶[0195]-[0197] discussing charts),
generating a plurality of the claim constructions that are broader than the first version (generates synonyms with broader technical terms, ¶[0079]),
storing in a second data structure the plurality of versions of the claim constructions so that each of the versions is retrievable (converts documentation into vector space model, ¶¶[0128], [0136], [0137] and stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]),
crawling for documentation for one or more prior art references using a broader or a narrower version of the claim constructions stored in the second data structure and a summary of the patent (searches internet, e.g., ¶[0083]; see also ¶[0036] noting references includes published patents and published patent applications),
crawling for documentation for one or more prior art references using a broader or a narrower version of the claim constructions stored in the second data structure and a summary of the patent (searches internet, e.g., ¶[0083]; see also ¶[0036] noting references includes published patents and published patent applications),
chunking the documentation for the one or more infringing products (indexer extracts data by splitting text into a particular type of lexical unit, such as into paragraphs, sentences and components of sentences (e.g. a component of a parsed syntax tree, such as a noun chunk), ¶[0095]; see also ¶[0081] discussing extracting keywords and phrases; and ¶[0074] discussing repeating process for reference documents in multiple, different languages,
and storing the chunks of documentation in the vector data structure (converts documentation into vector space model, ¶¶[0128], [0136], [0137] and stores search documents according to vector space model, ¶[0143]),
for each chunk of documentation, creating a vector embedding, and storing the vector embedding in the vector data structure (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶¶[0115], [0176]),
creating a vector embedding for each limitation of the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions (uses Word2Vec and vector space word embeddings to generate synonyms for textual data, e.g., ¶¶[0104], [0106]; see also ¶[0066] discussing analyzing claim language),
retrieving from the vector data structure the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches, for each vector embedding of the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the vector embeddings stored in the vector data structure, identifying the vector embeddings having the closest matches (determines relevancy score of each vector, ¶[0147], to rank the search documents, ¶[0115], [0176]),
providing to the language model the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the vector embeddings of the closet matches, generating a second version of the validity claim chart and a second version of the infringement chart comprising the broader or the narrower version of the claim constructions and the chunks of documentation associated with the closet matches (generates report for the claims on the match of the relevant documents including an infringement/patentability documents to include in a chart, ¶¶[0159], [0161]; see also Figs. 11, 12 showing examples of charts and e.g., ¶¶[0195]-[0197] discussing charts).
However Hancock does not teach but Ford does teach:
generating a plurality of the claim constructions that are narrower than the first version (creates narrower claim constructions to support noninfringement arguments, pgs. 95-99),
and determining the patent claim construction that provides the lowest probability of infringement and highest probability of invalidating a patent (analyses trade-offs of narrow and broad claim constructions, pgs. 94-100 and 102-109).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the analysis of the validity or infringement of patent claims of Hancock with the consideration of claim construction of Ford because Ford suggests considering narrower and broader claim constructions as they are better or worse for noninfringement and validity arguments, pg. 95; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 28 the combination of Hancock and Ford teaches all the limitations of claim 27 and Hancock further teaches:
wherein the step of storing the plurality of versions of the claim constructions in a second data structure comprises storing the plurality of versions of the claim constructions in a tree, graph or table data structure (uses graph databases, ¶[0048]).
Regarding claim 29 the combination of Hancock and Ford teaches all the limitations of claim 27 and Hancock further teaches:
and storing each of the versions of the infringement claim charts and validity claim charts in a second data structure (stores data in various formats, e.g., ¶[0056])
However Hancock does not teach but Ford does teach:
ranking the patent claim constructions in order of the lowest probability of infringement and highest probability of invalidating the patent (analyses trade-offs of narrow and broad claim constructions for noninfringement and validity arguments, pgs. 94-100 and 102-109).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the analysis of the validity or infringement of patent claims of Hancock with the consideration of claim construction of Ford because Ford suggests considering narrower and broader claim constructions as they are better or worse for noninfringement and validity arguments, pg. 95; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.

Regarding claim 39, the combination of Hancock and Ford teaches all the limitations of claim 27 and Hancock further teaches:
wherein chunking the documentation comprises performing semantic chunking or hierarchical chunking (indexer extracts data by splitting text into a particular type of lexical unit, such as into paragraphs, sentences and components of sentences (e.g. a component of a parsed syntax tree, such as a noun chunk), ¶[0095]).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Hancock and Ford teaches all the limitations of claim 39 and Hancock further teaches::
wherein hierarchical chunking comprises receiving sections of the documentation, identified based on section headings, as chunks of the chunks, and wherein semantic chunking comprises receiving sentences or paragraphs of the documentation as chunks of the chunks (indexer extracts data by splitting text into a particular type of lexical unit, such as into paragraphs, sentences and components of sentences (e.g. a component of a parsed syntax tree, such as a noun chunk), ¶[0095]).

Claim(s) 12-14, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock in view of Es, Shahul, et al. "Ragas: Automated evaluation of retrieval augmented generation." Proceedings of the 18th conference of the European chapter of the association for computational linguistics: system demonstrations. 2024, herein referred to as “Es”.
Regarding claim 12, Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and does not teach but Es does teach:
using one or more of faithfulness, answer relevance or context relevance (estimates faithfulness of LLMs, pg. 151).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the analysis of the validity or infringement of patent claims of Hancock with RAGA because ES explicitly suggests using RAGA to contribute to faster evaluation cycles, pg. 150; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 13, Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and further teaches:
to rank the chunks and generating the infringement claim chart, using the language model, wherein the infringing products are ranked according to infringement likelihood (scores how well search documents match, e.g., ¶¶[0146]-[0147], [0155], [0176]-[0177]).
However Hancock does not teach but Es does teach:
using one or more RAGAs strategies (uses various RAGA strategies, pgs. 153-153).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the analysis of the validity or infringement of patent claims of Hancock with RAGA because ES explicitly suggests using RAGA to contribute to faster evaluation cycles, pg. 150; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 14, Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 3 and further teaches:
to rank the chunks and generating the validity claim chart wherein prior art documentation is ranked according to invalidity likelihood (scores how well search documents match, e.g., ¶¶[0146]-[0147], [0155], [0176]-[0177]).
However Hancock does not teach but Es does teach:
using one or more RAGAs strategies (uses various RAGA strategies, pgs. 153-153).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the analysis of the validity or infringement of patent claims of Hancock with RAGA because ES explicitly suggests using RAGA to contribute to faster evaluation cycles, pg. 150; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.

Regarding claim 17, the combination of Hancock and Es teaches all the limitations of claim 13 and Hancock further teaches:
generating an infringement claim chart wherein the documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches is product documentation of infringing products. (generates report for the claims on the match of the relevant documents including an infringement documents to include in a chart, ¶¶[0159], [0161]; see also Figs. 11, 12 showing examples of charts and e.g., ¶¶[0195]-[0197] discussing charts).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Hancock and Es teaches all the limitations of claim 13 and Hancock further teaches:
generating a validity claim chart wherein the documentation associated with the vector embeddings having the closest matches is prior art documentation (generates report for the claims on the match of the relevant documents including an patentability documents to include in a chart, ¶¶[0159], [0161]; see also Figs. 11, 12 showing examples of charts and e.g., ¶¶[0195]-[0197] discussing charts).

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lundberg, US Pub. No. 2025/0315906 teaches a similar LLM based process of generating claim charts
Morimoto, US Pub. No. 2015/0227505 teaches a similar concept for determining broader or narrower terminology
Lin, WO-2025160575 teaches a similar LLM based process of generating claim charts
Ragot, Sébastien. "A novel approach to measuring the scope of patent claims based on probabilities obtained from (large) language models." arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10003 (2023) teaches a similar LLM based analysis of claim scope
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is [phone]. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at [phone]. 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.

/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626

1 Examiner notes the definition of “chunking” includes breaking documents into smaller sections (e.g., sentences and paragraphs) and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, such a concept encompasses reading the document.
2 See fn. 1
3 See fn. 1
4 See fn. 1
5 See fn. 1
6 See fn. 1.

Prosecution Timeline

• Oct 23, 2025: Application Filed
• Feb 18, 2026: Response after Non-Final Action
• Aug 12, 2026: Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §102, §103 (current)