IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,380,522
Granted Patent B2
US 12,380,522 · App. 18/328,881 · Granted Aug 5, 2025

Document term recognition and analytics

Inventors: Olalekan Awoyemi (Prosper, TX); Jason Hoover (Grapevine, TX); Staevan Duckworth (The Colony, TX); Geoffrey Dagley (McKinney, TX); Stephen Wylie (Carrollton, TX); Qiaochu Tang (The Colony, TX); Micah Price (Anna, TX)
Assignee: Capital One Services, LLC
G06Q50/188G06F16/313G06N20/00G06V30/413G06Q30/0282
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,380,522
App. No.
18/328,881
Granted
Aug 5, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

A device receives image data of a contractual document that includes an offer including terms of a proposed transaction, converts the image data to text data that identifies text within the contractual document, and receives preferences information for a recipient of the offer. The device identifies key terms within the contractual document by using term identification to analyze the text. The key terms may include a first key term that identifies subject matter of the proposed transaction and other key terms that are part of the offer. The device determines term scores that correspond to likelihoods of the other key terms being favorable to the recipient by using a data model to analyze the key terms and the preferences information. The device, based on the term scores, generates and provides another device with a recommendation to be used in determining whether the accept the offer.

Claims (98)

1. A method, comprising:

training, by a device, a data model using a convolutional neural network (CNN) to receive a plurality of terms to generate a plurality of term scores,

wherein the plurality of terms are in a document, and

wherein training the data model comprises:

analyzing a set of vectors using a convolutional layer of the CNN by applying a filter to one or more portions of the set of vectors to create a feature map, and

analyzing the feature map, using the convolutional neural network, to output a plurality of M-dimensional vectors that indicate the plurality of term scores;

determining, by the device and using the data model, one or more unfavorable terms, from a set of terms, having unfavorable term scores from a set of term scores,

wherein the set of terms are from the plurality of terms,

wherein the set of term scores are from the plurality of term scores,

wherein the set of term scores correspond to one or more likelihoods of whether one or more terms, of the set of terms, are favorable or unfavorable based on user profile data, and

wherein the unfavorable term scores are less than a threshold,

wherein the threshold is based on the user profile data;

running, by the device, one or more simulations with one or more proposed modifications of one or more unfavorable term scores, from the set of term scores, that are less than the threshold, by modifying a value of the one or more unfavorable terms; and

providing, by the device, a recommendation regarding the document based on modifying the one or more unfavorable terms.

2. The method of claim 1 , wherein determining the set of term scores comprises:

providing the set of terms as input to the data model to cause the data model to output the set of term scores,

wherein the one or more terms identify purchasing information associated with the document, and

wherein one or more term scores, of the set of term scores, are based on whether the one or more terms that identify the purchasing information have values that are within one or more threshold ranges of values associated with corresponding terms that are found in the user profile data.

3. The method of claim 1 , wherein providing the recommendation comprises:

providing the recommendation based on indicating a weighted average of the set of term scores.

4. The method of claim 1 , wherein generating the recommendation comprises:

providing the recommendation to include the one or more proposed modifications to the one or more terms,

wherein the one or more proposed modifications include at least one of:

a first modification to add a new term to the document,

a second modification to remove a term, of the one or more terms, from the document, or

a third modification to change a particular term of the one or more terms in the document.

5. The method of claim 1 , wherein the document includes an offer with terms of a proposed transaction.

6. The method of claim 1 , further comprising:

identifying the set of terms within the document using a term matching technique to compare text included within the document and a master set of terms from the user profile data.

7. The method of claim 1 , wherein the document is a proposed contract with an offer, and

wherein providing the recommendation comprises:

providing the recommendation for display via another device to facilitate:

making a counteroffer, or

rejecting the offer.

8. A device, comprising:

one or more memories; and

one or more processors configured to:

train a data model using a convolutional neural network (CNN) to receive a plurality of terms to generate a plurality of term scores by:

analyzing a set of vectors using a convolutional layer of the CNN by applying a filter to one or more portions of the set of vectors to create a map, and

analyzing the map, using the convolutional neural network, to output a plurality of vectors that indicate the plurality of term scores;

determine one or more unfavorable terms, from a set of terms, having unfavorable term scores from a set of term scores,

wherein the set of terms are from the plurality of terms in a document,

wherein the set of term scores are from the plurality of term scores,

wherein the set of term scores correspond to one or more likelihoods of whether one or more terms are favorable or unfavorable based on user profile data, and

wherein the unfavorable term scores are less than a threshold,

wherein the threshold is based on the user profile data;

run one or more simulations with one or more proposed modifications of one or more unfavorable term scores, from the set of term scores, that are less than the threshold, by modifying a value of the one or more unfavorable terms; and

provide a recommendation regarding the document based on modifying the one or more unfavorable terms.

9. The device of claim 8 , wherein the user profile data includes one or more of:

data identifying past documents that were accepted,

data identifying past documents that were rejected,

purchasing preferences,

product preferences,

service preferences,

brand preferences, or

financial data.

10. The device of claim 8 , wherein the one or more processors, to provide the recommendation, are configured to:

provide the recommendation based on indicating a weighted average of the set of term scores.

11. The device of claim 8 , wherein the one or more terms include at least one of:

a term that identifies a user of the user profile data,

a term that identifies a maker of an offer, or

a term that identifies a subject matter of the document.

12. The device of claim 8 , wherein the one or more processors, to determine the set of term scores, are configured to:

provide the set of terms as input to the data model to cause the data model to output the set of term scores,

wherein the one or more terms identify purchasing information associated with the document, and

wherein one or more term scores, of the set of term scores, are based on whether the one or more terms that identify the purchasing information have values that are within one or more threshold ranges of values associated with corresponding terms that are found in the user profile data.

13. The device of claim 8 , wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:

identify a plurality of terms included in the document by analyzing text from the document using a tokenization technique;

compare the plurality of terms and a configured set of tokens; and

identify a subset of the plurality of terms, as the set of terms, based on the set of terms satisfying a threshold level of similarity with the configured set of tokens.

14. The device of claim 8 , wherein the one or more processors, to generate the recommendation, are to:

identify a new term to replace an unfavorable key term of the one or more unfavorable terms by analyzing other documents for particular subject matter that is similar to subject matter of the document.

15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, the instructions comprising:

one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the one or more processors to:

train a data model using a convolutional neural network (CNN) to receive a plurality of terms to generate a plurality of term scores by:

analyzing a set of vectors using a convolutional layer of the CNN by applying a filter to one or more portions of the set of vectors to create a feature map, and

analyzing the feature map, using the convolutional neural network, to output a plurality of M-dimensional vectors that indicate the plurality of term scores;

receive user profile data;

determine one or more unfavorable terms, from a set of terms, having unfavorable term scores from a set of term scores,

wherein the set of terms are from the plurality of terms in a document,

wherein the set of term scores are from the plurality of term scores,

wherein the set of term scores correspond to one or more likelihoods of whether one or more terms, of the set of terms, are favorable or unfavorable based on the user profile data, and

wherein the unfavorable term scores are less than a threshold,

wherein the threshold is based on the user profile data;

run one or more simulations with one or more proposed modifications of one or more unfavorable term scores, from the set of term scores, that are less than the threshold, by modifying a value of the one or more unfavorable terms; and

provide a recommendation regarding the document based on the one or more unfavorable terms.

16. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 ,

wherein the document is a proposed contract, and

wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the one or more processors to provide the recommendation, cause the one or more processors to:

provide the recommendation to facilitate rejecting an offer associated with the proposed contract.

17. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 , wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the one or more processors to provide the recommendation, cause the one or more processors to:

provide the recommendation based on indicating a weighted average of the set of term scores.

18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 , wherein the one or more instructions further cause the one or more processors to:

identify the set of terms within the document using a term matching technique to compare text included within the document and a master set of terms from the user profile data.

19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 , wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the one or more processors to generate the recommendation, cause the one or more processors to:

identify a new term to recommend to replace an unfavorable key term of the one or more unfavorable terms by analyzing other documents for particular subject matter that is similar to subject matter of the document.

20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 , wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the one or more processors to run the one or more simulations with the one or more proposed modifications of the one or more unfavorable term scores, cause the one or more processors to:

re-compute the set of term scores based on running the one or more simulations.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Jun 5, 2023
From: AWOYEMI, OLALEKAN; HOOVER, JASON; DUCKWORTH, STAEVAN; DAGLEY, GEOFFREY; WYLIE, STEPHEN; TANG, QIAOCHU; PRICE, MICAH
To: CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, LLC
Reel/Frame 063853/0729 →
Continuity (3)
Continuation 17451856 · Oct 22, 2021
Continuation 16244844 · Jan 10, 2019
Related Publication 20230316442A1 · Oct 5, 2023
References Cited (23)
US 6067531A · Hoyt et al. · 2000 [cited by applicant]
US 9874859B1 · Perzichilli · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 10062069B1 · Madden · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 11157972B2 · Awoyemi et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11682093B2 · Awoyemi et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20030115080A1 · Kasravi · 2003 [cited by examiner]
US 20030144907A1 · Cohen, Jr. · 2003 [cited by examiner]
US 20060106653A1 · Lis · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20140019368A1 · Noh et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140180826A1 · Boal · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 20160314529A1 · Dolle · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20170061352A1 · Kogut-O'Connell et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170364374A1 · Maiden · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180268506A1 · Wodetzki · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20200026916A1 · Wood et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
⋅ R. Lock, “Automated Negotiation for Service Contracts,” 30th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC'06), Chicaco, IL, USA, 2006, pp. 127-134, doi: 10.1109/COMPSAC.2006.118 (Year: 2… [cited by examiner]
Lippi, Marco, et al. “Automated detection of unfair clauses in online consumer contracts.” Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, IOS Press, 2017. 145-154. (Year: 2010). [cited by examiner]
Chakrabarti, et al., “Use of Artificial Intelligence to Analyse Risk in Legal Documents for a Better Decision Support,” TENCON 2018-2018 IEEE Region 10 Conference, Jeju, Korea, Oct. 28-31, 2018, pp. 0683-0688, DOI: 10.1… [cited by applicant]
Kepes, B., “eBrevia Applies Machine Learning to Contract Review,” Feb. 20, 2015, 4 pages, https://www.forbes.com.sites/benkepes/2015/02/20/ebrevia-applies-machine-learning-to-contract-review/#1fd4eb5756da. [cited by applicant]
LegalSifter | Sift before you sign your Contracts, Jan. 9, 2019, 3 pages, https://www.legalsifter.com/. [cited by applicant]
Panday et al., “Location Identification, Extraction and Disambiguation using Machine Learning in Legal Contracts,” 2018 4th International Conference on Computing Communication and Automation (ICCCA), doi: 10.1109/CCAA.2… [cited by applicant]
Reduce Contract Review Pain Points with Machine Learning, Feb. 25, 2016, 48 pages, https://www.iltanet.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=67ca7881-2974-5. [cited by applicant]
Waisbert, N., “Machine Learning Based Contract Provision Extraction on Poor Quality Scans Contract Review Software Buyers Guide,” Mar. 19, 2014, 12 pages, https://info.kirasystems.com/blog/2014/03/19/machine-learning-ba… [cited by applicant]