DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed on 12/01/2025. Claims 1-22 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/01/2025 has been entered.
Examiner Note
It appears much of the arguments presented by the Applicant are synonymous to previous arguments and points raised in previous responses. There is a mutual disagreement that has been established on record and therefore it may be beneficial for the Applicant to consider an Appeal or further amend the claims so that they are in line with what is being argued as noted/identified below.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
With respect to claim 16, and the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the Applicant amended claim 16 and therefore this rejection has been withdrawn.
With respect to claim 1 and the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the Applicant asserts that the currently amended limitation related to “known eye fixation bounds” matches the specification definition in paragraphs [0048]-[0050]. Further, Applicant notes that such term is well-established and therefore is no less definite than other terms providing examples of “ergonomic positioning”, “comfortable viewing distance” that have been allowed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner cannot control what occurs in other allowed patents as the fact patterns in those patents would be different. Therefore, the examiner will sole consider only what one skilled in the art can understand and the details provided by the specification. The term “known” is relative in the sense that it’s subject to change and this change is highly dependent on the subject or the manner in which the stimulus is presented. The citations provided by the Applicant support the Examiner’s argument in that the value of the bounds is not fixed and therefore is relative.
With respect to the secondary conditions presented on pages 8-9 of the Remarks, these assertions appear to be mere allegations of patentability and without showing facts or data as to how each of these statements are supported. Nevertheless, the Examiner has considered each of the statements but is not persuaded.
With respect to the arguments on pages 10-11, the Applicant asserts that “This eye fixation limitation necessarily requires actual detailed implementation: sizing compound elements to match fixation bounds, and spacing elements to enable discrete processing of each semantic unit without visual interference from adjacent clusters”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. The examiner notes that none of these aspects are currently claimed nor are they mentioned in the cited portions of the spec [0049]-[0050]. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., sizing compound elements to match fixation bounds, and spacing elements to enable discrete processing of each semantic unit without visual interference from adjacent clusters) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, in this instance such support could not be found from the specification. Therefore, the arguments directed to Sutz are moot.
With respect to the Applicant assertions on page 12-13 with respect to Cox have been acknowledged by the Examiner as there are no arguments presented.
With respect to the Applicant assertions on page 13, the Applicant asserts that Sweeney does not provide teaching as to how compounds are constructed, unclear whether they are user typed inputs or system generated, and compound construction from content analysis. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that the claim limitation recites the following “constructing compound cloud elements, wherein compound cloud elements are comprised of multiple isolated cloud elements or multiple isolated and other compound cloud elements, wherein cloud element attributes and associations form the basis for the compound cloud element, wherein the isolated cloud elements forming compound cloud elements include, relative to content order, at least one of consecutive or non-consecutive cloud elements”. The claim mentions/recites that compound cloud elements are constructed and further describes what these compound cloud elements are constructed of and that cloud element attributes and associations form the basis for the compound cloud element. However, the limitation as asserted by the applicant as not being taught by Sweeney does not explain how these compound cloud elements are constructed. It can be seen as noted in the past response and from the Applicant’s response that Sweeney does show compound cloud elements which have been constructed in order for the compound to be displayed. How these compound elements are displayed are based on the various associations with other elements as depicted in Figure 9 based on the sizing, location of the word and timewise. It appears Applicant is taking a narrow understanding of what is meant by construction and such should be made clear as to how the compound elements are constructed to differentiate the references.
With respect to the assertions on page 14-15, the Applicant further asserts that Sweeney does not specifically teach the scrolling feature. More specifically, the Applicant asserts “As to the scrolling elements in the current claim, the scrolling in current claim 1 is through segments of the original content selected to break up the content into time ordered or sequence ordered segments to provide the option that a current graphical cloud display page is based on a preferred size of content segment. In Fig. 9 Sweeney only describes scrolling through user workspace sessions, as will be described in more detail below. He does not disclose or teach segmenting the content, so he can't possibly teach scrolling through segments in his disclosure as content subset segments do not exist.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. The Examiner notes that nowhere in the claim is there a requirement that notes that content must be segmented. The claim limitation only makes mention that “subset of segments exist” not that content is being broken up into time ordered or sequence ordered segments. Regardless, Sweeney does describe in para [0115] and Figure 9, these segments of the content being displayed along time which can be controlled by the user.
In response, the Applicant further asserts that:
“In Current Application claim 1, for the case where cloud content is text, the concept of content-order, which for text is defined as sequence order, is the sequence of cloud elements found in the original content from which the graphical cloud is constructed. This order or sequence of elements in current claim 1 claims maintaining the sequence order of the original content in the display of the graphical cloud, solely and entirely within a given graphical cloud The examiner asserts that the scrolling 98 in Sweeney Figure 9 and para 115 links time to sequence order of elements.
What Sweeney para 115 actually states is:"[0115] In some embodiments, changes to a thought (tag) cloud may be tracked over time, including the identity of each person making a change. Changes may be tracked by, for example, a time-series database or in a separate database table of a relational database or in any other satisfactory manner that will readily be known to those skilled in computer science. In some embodiments, the user interface shown in FIG. 9 may include a slider bar 98 which can be manipulated by a user to position an indicator 99 along the slider bar to select a time along the time line represented by the slider bar, with a corresponding display in selected upper section 92 or lower section 94 then showing the state of the selected workspace cloud at the selected time."
So first, Sweeney is describing tag clouds that are changed by users over calendar time, so he is describing different versions of the tag clouds that may exist at different times. There is no mention at all in this paragraph, or in Fig. 9, about original content element sequence order (i.e. word order). This paragraph and Figure solely describe an ability to view the workspace, i.e. state or version of the tag cloud, over "time along a timeline" to allow users to see what the collaborators did to the shared workspace at a "selected time". These user sessions at different times are what is shown in Figure 9, and the scrolling is through sessions, not through elements (i.e. words) from the content. The following example is what the teachings of FIG. 9 provide:
The Slider of Figure 9 allows that if John made some changes on Monday, Jack made changes on Tuesday, Jill on Thursday, that if Bill on Saturday wanted to see what John and Jack did before Jill accessed the workspace, he would scroll the slider 99 to Wednesday, the "selected time ""...along a timeline ".
This is the only possible meaning derivable from para 115 and Figure 9. "Time along a timeline" and "selected time" does not have anything to do with original content sequence order. There is no connection to original content sequence order and the subsequent display of cloud elements derived from original content order in the Graphical cloud. The only time linkage disclosed is relative to entire tag cloud versions, not to elements (i.e.) word time or sequence linkage to original content. Sweeney117] confirms this interpretation: the system tracks "when ideas were conceived and by whom" -i.e., when users typed inputs - not content element time or sequence order within analyzed source content. Sweeney provides no linkage of time (or sequence) relative to element order (i.e. words) within the analyzed content. Time and sequence have completely different meanings in Sweeney compared to the current disclosure, which does not contemplate in any way allowing for and tracking multiple collaborative versions of the graphical cloud. This is why Applicant believes that Sweeney is not relevant
The examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. The examiner appreciates the definition and breakdown of the differences between the current claims and the cited prior art. However, such differences are not explicitly denoted and recited by the current claims. The applicant notes that “the concept of content-order, which for text is defined as sequence order, is the sequence of cloud elements found in the original content from which the graphical cloud is constructed. This order or sequence of elements in current claim 1 claims maintaining the sequence order of the original content in the display of the graphical cloud, solely and entirely within a given graphical cloud. However, no where in the claims is this defined or claimed as such. The arguments which follow make comparison to this reasoning and therefore the Applicant is in the notion that Sweeney does not teach what is claimed. Regardless, of what Sweeney actually teaches, the current claim language is not worded nor is interpretation under BRI only that which is explained by the Applicant. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are moot.In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., maintaining the sequence order of the original content in the display of the graphical cloud) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Examiner also notes that the display of Sweeney clearly shows ordering of content which is as the Applicant mentions related to collaborations and changes made by others. Para [0117], notes that this cloud allows the ability for a user to see the evolution of the concept through time and when ideas were conceived and by whom thus indicating an ordering of the content is present. The fact that the content of Sweeney is based off of collaborations of individuals is immaterial since the claims do not make mention how this content ordering, sequence ordering (or time ordering) is determined. Claim limitations are read in light of the Specification but are not read into the claims. Thus, the Examiner does not dispute Applicant’s understanding of Sweeney but does dispute the language being interpreted per the current claims as recited.
With respect to the assertions on page 18-19, the Applicant asserts:
Yadav is not using "cumulative temporal occurrence" to establish order or sequence. He does not teach maintaining original content sequence order in display of the word or graphical cloud because he, in fact, teaches statistical analysis using "cumulative temporal occurrence" to determine word placement. This approach does the exact opposite of maintaining original content sequence order - it centers words at averaged positions where they in most cases never actually occurred. This is why Yadav' s use of "cumulative temporal occurrence" is exactly a teaching away. Yadav [0051] defines "cumulative temporal occurrence" as "the mean, average, or variance of one or more timestamps." This mathematical operation necessarily destroys the actual sequence from source content….
Yadav does mention that cloud elements are timestamped, but never claims timestamps are used to preserve actual positioning in the display. Instead, timestamps are averaged, which destroys the order required by Claim 1. To be clear, yes Yadav does mention time indirectly, by referring to timestamps, but his teachings on how to display cloud elements uses the timestamps as variables in a mathematical function whose result is to change the original content sequence, not to order them in time. This result, however it is achieved, seems to be uniform across the entire body of art in this field, and it eliminates one of the main benefits taught by the Current Disclosure: maintaining original content sequence visually in the graphical cloud greatly increases the user comprehension of what in the past has always been a visually confusing display. So, no possible BRI leads to Yadav actually displaying elements in original sequence order, since all of his teachings on display have the exact opposite effect.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. The examiner holds the same reasoning as applied in the Final Rejections on pages 5-6. The Examiner also notes that the specific language of “maintaining original content sequence order in display of the word or graphical cloud” is not specifically recited as noted above. Furthermore, despite the examples provided by the applicant, Yadav clearly notes in paragraph [0068], that “For instance, the processor 202 may place the one or more words along the x-axis of the multidimensional graph 400 based on the value of the cumulative temporal occurrence. The position of the word with respect to x-axis is deterministic of relative position of occurrence of the word in the multimedia content.” Therefore, the position of each word in Yadav is deterministic of the relative position of occurrence of the word in the multimedia content thus showing clear teaching of a sequence order or content order.
The applicant on page 20 asserts that “The Current Disclosure necessarily requires applying analysis to the display of cloud elements: sizing compound elements to match fixation capacity (2-4 words) and spacing elements to enable discrete processing of each semantic unit without visual interference from adjacent clusters.” However, as already responded to with respect to the arguments on page 10-11, these aspects as currently argued are not specifically claimed in the current claims. Therefore these arguments are moot.
Hence, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. No new references have been applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “known eye fixation upper bounds” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “eye fixation upper bounds” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the Applicant is intending by “known”. The specification does not provide any description of this term and therefore is rendered definite.
Claims 2-22 are further rejected for being dependent upon an indefinite base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2012/0179465) in view Sweeney (US 2011/0282919) in view of Yadav (US 2016/0118060) in view of Kaser (“Tag-Cloud Drawing: Algorithms for Cloud Visualization”, 2007) in view of Sutz (US 2016/0133150).
As to claim 1, Cox teaches a process for extracting and displaying relevant information from a content source, wherein the process is a digital process executing on a computing of logic device (see [0054], word cloud for a conversation, [0066], digital representation and see [0023], which is carried out by a computer), comprising:
Acquiring content digitally (see [0066], digital representation) from at least one of a real-time stream or a pre-recorded store, wherein the content includes at least one of audio, video or text (see [0058], acquires audio and see [0002], real-time generation of audio content summaries, see Figure 6, step 602 and 606, audio and text);
…a cloud lens defining at least one of a segment duration or length, wherein the segment comprises at least one of all or a subset of at least one of a total number of Cloud Elements (see [0069], where word cloud is generated after every segment and can also be updated at any interval and interval can be assigned by each user and see Figure 4, where word clouds per segment basis is provided);
Applying at least one cloud filter to rank the level of significance of each Cloud Element associated with a given segment (see [0004], where word clouds based on words used most frequently and see [0069], where frequency of word usage is used to summarize text);
Constructing at least one graphical cloud comprising a visualization derived from the content that is comprised of filtered Cloud Elements (see [0069], where word cloud is generated and see [0078], based on summarizing text).
However, Cox does not specifically disclose Constructing compound cloud elements, wherein compound cloud elements are comprised of multiple isolated cloud elements or multiple isolated and other compound cloud elements, wherein cloud element attributes and associations form the basis for the compound cloud element, wherein the isolated cloud elements forming compound cloud elements include, relative to content order, at least one of consecutive or non-consecutive cloud elements and Setting a cloud lens, optionally via received user input, defining at least one of a segment duration or length, wherein the segment comprises at least one of all or a subset of a total number of cloud elements.
Sweeney does disclose Constructing compound cloud elements, wherein compound cloud elements are comprised of multiple isolated cloud elements or multiple isolated and other compound cloud elements (see Figure 9, global workspace 92, shows compound element of home renovation), wherein cloud element attributes and associations form the basis for the compound cloud element (see Figure 9, where each word is presented as a cloud element including compounds words), wherein the isolated cloud elements forming compound cloud elements include, relative to content order, at least one of consecutive or non-consecutive cloud elements (see Figure 9, where workspace is a cloud based on time selected from scrolling 99 and see [0115]);
Setting a cloud lens, optionally via received user input, defining at least one of a segment duration or length, wherein the segment comprises at least one of all or a subset of a total number of cloud elements (see Figure 9, position indicator 99 and see [0115], which allows display corresponding to specific time and allows for user selection);
at least one of scrolling the cloud lens through subset segments or displaying a segment of the entire content to display on a digital display the graphical cloud of significant cloud elements within each segment (see [0106] and Figure 9, slider 98, which allows scrolling over time based on user selection of time segment to present the word cloud in response to the selection based (i.e. cloud elements based at least on time as a result of changes to cloud in response to user selection of time point) and where display/computer screen noted);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the word cloud as taught by Cox with the scrolling as taught by Sweeney in order to allow average computer user to create, visualize and manipulate a data structure (see Sweeney [0016]).
However, Cox in view of Sweeney do not specifically disclose determining the visualization attributes of the displayed graphical cloud construction by: Setting a minimum visual spacing of cloud elements to allow eye fixation of each of the discrete, displayed cloud elements; Receiving optional user input for changing cloud element displayed density according to user preference for visual spacing above the minimum visual spacing; Displaying cloud elements whereby cloud elements within a graphical cloud display visualization maintain their content-ordered placement across and within all displayed cloud elements, wherein content-ordered is time-ordered for audio and video content and sequence- ordered for text content.
Yadav does disclose Determining the visualization attributes of the displayed graphical cloud construction by: Receiving optional user input for changing cloud element displayed density according to user preference for visual spacing above a process determined for visual spacing (e.g. This is an optional limitation and therefore has not been mapped); Displaying cloud elements whereby cloud elements within a graphical cloud display visualization maintain their content-ordered placement across and within all displayed cloud elements, wherein content-ordered is time-ordered for audio and video content and sequence- ordered for text content (see Figure 4, entire figure, [0068]-[0069], where a word cloud is presented and where position of the word with respect to the y-axis is deterministic of the spread of the word throughout the content and the x-axis based on the temporal occurrence and where “TRIES”, is at the left which depends it occurring in the beginning of the multimedia content and words to the right occur at end of multimedia content therefore showing an arrangement of cloud elements with respect to an order in time or sequential order within the content. Also see [0070],[0071], where word significance is depicted by font size and color ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the word cloud as taught by Cox in view of Sweeney with the arrangement as taught by Yadav in order to allow average computer user to create, visualize and manipulate a data structure (see Sweeney [0016]) and to prevent the user
However, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav do not specifically disclose Setting a minimum visual spacing of cloud elements to allow eye fixation of each of the discrete, displayed cloud elements.
Kaser does disclose setting visual spacing of cloud elements between one of single or compound cloud elements and the visual spacing chosen to provide visual isolation between cloud elements (see sect. 4.1, 1st paragraph where the size of the tag cloud including font and font sizes is dependent on the web browser and page layout, letter spacing and word spacing used to change width of phrases and the horizontal space between tags is described and see sect 5.2.4, where relaxation of width and height of tags).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the word cloud as taught by Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav with the spacing as taught by Kaser in order to allow representations of graphs which are easy to understand and pleasing (see Kaser, sect. 2. 2" paragraph).
However, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser do not specifically teach the number of elements within the compound element chosen to fall within known eye fixation bounds.
Sutz does disclose a number of elements within the compound element chosen to fall within known eye fixation upper bounds; (see [0029], where reading exercises display prime words requiring reading of two or more words in a single eye fixation and see [0043],[0049], where two to four words are presented so that eyes are not moving and the user is looking at the screen in a single eye fixation). (e.g. The examiner notes the previous reference already discloses word clouds and presenting words).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the word cloud as taught by Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser with the spacing as taught by Sutz in order to allow improved system to enable advanced reading skills (see Sutz, [0004]).
As to claim 2, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz teaches all of the limitations as in claim 1, above.
Furthermore, Cox teaches wherein speech portions of the audio/video are transformed to text (see Figure 6, step 602 and 606, audio and text) , using at least one of automatic speech recognition, transcription, automated transcription or a combination of both (see Figure 6, step 606, speech to text).
As to claim 3, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz teaches all of the limitations as in claim 1, above.
Furthermore, Sweeney discloses comprising synchronizing each cloud element displayed in the graphical cloud with the content by way of a digital link between the cloud element and the corresponding portion of the content whereby receiving a user selection of a displayed cloud element will cause real-time playback or display of the portion of content containing the selected cloud element (see [0115], where slider bar is synchronized with cloud as when user selects specific time the upper and lower display portions update) (e.g. cloud is synchronized with the slider and presents the updated cloud based on user selection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the word cloud as taught by Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz with the synchronizing as taught by Sweeney in order to allow average computer user to create, visualize and manipulate a data structure (see Sweeney [0016]).
As to claim 4, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz teaches all of the limitations as in claim 1, above.
Furthermore, Cox teaches wherein isolated cloud elements are derived from source content and transformational content through at least one of transformation or analysis (see [0069], [0004], where frequency of words used in generation of cloud), comprising: Extracting at least one of graphical elements including words (see [0069], [0004], where frequency of words used in generation of cloud), icons, avatars, emojis, representing words at least one of spoken or written (See [0058], derived from audio), emotions expressed, speaker's intent, speaker's tone, speaker's inflection, speaker's mood, speaker change (see [0054], speaker change), speaker identifications (see [0056], speaker identifications), speaker identifications (see [0056], speaker identifications), object identifications, meanings derived, active gestures, or derived color palettes; and, Constructing isolated cloud elements by assigning individual graphical elements, including words, icons, avatars, or emojis.
As to claim 5, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz teach all of the limitations as in claim 1, above.
Furthermore, Sweeney discloses wherein scrolling is performed through segments, where segments displayed are at least one of consecutive (see [0115], where user is able to manipulate slider to position indicator 99 to select a time along a time line), with the end of one segment is a beginning of a next segment (see [0115], timelines where a user can slide bar to select time and cloud changes), or overlapping, providing a substantially continuous transformation of the resulting graphical cloud based on an incrementally changing set of cloud elements depicted in the displayed graphical cloud (see [0115], cloud changes in response to user manipulation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the word cloud as taught by Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz with the scrolling as taught by Sweeney in order to allow average computer user to create, visualize and manipulate a data structure (see Sweeney [0016]).
As to claim 6, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz teaches all of the limitations as in claim 2, above.
Furthermore, Cox teaches wherein the at least one cloud filter comprises at least one of cloud element frequency including number of occurrences within the specified cloud lens segment (see [0069], frequency of word usage based on segments), the number of occurrences across the entire content sample (see [0004], frequently used words related to prominence of document), word weight, complexity including number of letters, syllables, syntax including grammar-based, part-of-speech, keyword, terminology extraction, word meaning based on context, sentence boundaries, emotion, or change in audio or video amplitude including loudness or level variation.
As to claim 9, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz teaches all of the limitations as in claim 1, above.
Furthermore, Cox teaches wherein digital signal processing is applied to produce cloud element attributes comprising at least one of signal amplitude, dynamic range, including speech levels and speech level ranges (for at least one of audio or video), visual gestures (video), speaker identification (at least one of audio or video) (see [0056], speaker identification), speaker change (at least one of audio or video) (see [0083], speaker change is detected), speaker tone, speaker inflection, person identification (at least one of audio or video) (see [0056], speaker identification), color scheme (video), pitch variation (at least one of audio or video) and speaking rate (at least one of audio or video).
As to claim 10, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz teaches all of the limitations as in claim 1, above.
Furthermore, Cox teaches wherein the cloud filter includes assigning higher rank to predetermined keywords. (see [0079], extra weight added to identified key words).
As to claim 11, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz teaches all of the limitations as in claim 1, above.
Furthermore, Cox teaches wherein predetermined visual treatment is applied to display of keywords (see [0078], where word cloud is generated and visualizing as in Figure 4).
As to claim 13, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz teaches all of the limitations as in claim 1, above.
Furthermore, Cox teaches wherein the display of time or sequence order is in reading order, including for English at least one of from top to bottom, from left to right, or both (see Figure 4, where information is presented in a time order where language is English and is top to bottom and left to right).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Branton (US 2014/0229159).
As to claim 7, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz teaches all of the limitations as in claim 2, above.
However, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser does not specifically disclose wherein syntax analysis to extract grammar-based components is applied to graphical word elements assigned to cloud elements identifying at least one part-of-speech, including noun, verb, adjective, parsing of sentence components, and sentence breaking, wherein syntax analysis includes tracking indirect references, including the association based on parts-of- speech, thereby defining cloud element attributes and cloud element associations.
Branton discloses wherein syntax analysis to extract grammar-based components is applied to graphical word elements assigned to cloud elements identifying at least one part-of-speech, including noun, verb, adjective, parsing of sentence components, and sentence breaking, wherein syntax analysis includes tracking indirect references, including an association based on parts-of- speech, thereby defining cloud element attributes and cloud element associations (see [0038], linguistic analysis performed such as pos tagging, lexing, stemming, parsing and see [0024], which describes the linguistic tagger and see [0031], which uses multiple parts of speech in combination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the word cloud as taught by Cox in view of Sweeny in view of Yadav in view Kaser in view of Sutz with the part of speech as taught by Branton in order to summarize documents more simply and efficiently (see Branton [0011]).
As to claim 8, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz teaches all of the limitations as in claim 2, above.
However, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser does not disclose wherein semantic analysis to extract meaning of individual words is applied to graphical word elements assigned to cloud elements identifying at least one of recognition of proper names, the application of optical character recognition (OCR) to determine the corresponding text, or associations between words including relationship extraction, thereby defining cloud element attributes and cloud element associations.
Branton does disclose wherein semantic analysis to extract meaning of individual words is applied to graphical word elements assigned to cloud elements identifying at least one of recognition of proper names (see [0030], nouns are identified and see [0038], semantic analysis), an application of optical character recognition (OCR) to determine the corresponding text (see [0037], OCR), or associations between words including relationship extraction, thereby defining cloud element attributes and cloud element associations (see [0038], sentence identification, noun identification and phrases that appear).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the word cloud as taught by Cox in view of Sweeny in view of Yadav in view Kaser in view of Sutz with the semantic analysis as taught by Branton in order to summarize documents more simply and efficiently (see Branton [0011]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Denoue (US 20170371496).
As to claim 12, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz teaches all of the limitations as in claim 1, above.
However, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser do not disclose wherein the cloud filter portion of the process comprises: Determining a cloud element rank factor assigned to each cloud element, based on results from content transformations including automatic speech recognition (ASR) confidence scores and/or other ASR metrics for audio and video based content; Applying the cloud element rank factor to the cloud element significance rank already determined for each cloud element in the graphical cloud.
Denoue discloses wherein the cloud filter portion of the process comprises: determining a cloud element rank factor assigned to each cloud element, based on results from content transformations including automatic speech recognition (ASR) confidence scores and/or other ASR metrics for audio and video based content (see [0027], where errors in speech recognition are known to have low frequency);
applying the cloud element rank factor to a cloud element significance rank already determined for each cloud element in the graphical cloud (see [0027], where threshold is set to eliminate low frequency words).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the word cloud as taught by Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz with the color and font as taught by Denoue in order to be able to use an approach robust to errors which are word clouds as taught by Cox and Sweeney and Kaser (See Denoue [0027]).
Claims 14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hubert (US 2010/0131899).
As to claim 14, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz teaches all of the limitations as in claim 1, above.
However, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz does not disclose wherein linked cloud elements are derived from cloud elements within the graphical cloud wherein links are established between the cloud element and other external resources
Hubert discloses wherein linked cloud elements are derived from cloud elements within the graphical cloud (see [0008], where keywords in the cloud opens a record source), wherein links are established between the cloud element and other external resources (see [0008], opens a record source via a URL), including generalized web links (URLs), files, images, and text (see [0018], where item can make reference to a record comprising an image, URP, description and see Figure 4-6 or other system record locator (e.g. file)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the word cloud as taught by Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz with linked cloud elements as taught by Hubert in order to provide relationships that connect tags amongst themselves with their listed records (see Hubert [0007]).
As to claim 18, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz in view of Hubert teaches all of the limitations as in claim 14, above.
Furthermore, Hubert discloses wherein user input is accepted to determine that a cloud element is linked cloud element and user selected cloud elements are linked to an external resource (see [0018], where record stored in a database or points to a source and see [0020], where user click on the keyword to cause record list to be updated based on selection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the word cloud as taught by Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz with linked cloud elements as taught by Hubert in order to provide relationships that connect tags amongst themselves with their listed records (see Hubert [0007]).
As to claim 19, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz in view of Hubert teaches all of the limitations as in claim 14, above.
Furthermore, Hubert discloses wherein user input takes the form of a cloud element being selected by a user clicking on a cloud element (see [0020], where user click on the keyword to cause record list to be updated based on selection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the word cloud as taught by Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz with clicking on a cloud element as taught by Hubert in order to provide relationships that connect tags amongst themselves with their listed records (see Hubert [0007]).
As to claim 20, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz in view of Hubert teaches all of the limitations as in claim 14, above.
Furthermore, Hubert teaches further comprising using a search engine and linking the element to the search engine results in display of one more entries found by the search engine related to the selected cloud element (see [0018], where record stored in a database or points to a source and see [0013], where user is provided with specific items matching the system selected keywords based on user selection of the keyword, where the selection of the keyword acts as a search engine to locate related records).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the word cloud as taught by Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz with linked cloud elements as taught by Hubert in order to provide relationships that connect tags amongst themselves with their listed records (see Hubert [0007]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz in view of Hubert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Diament (US 2014/0195950).
As to claim 15, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz in view of Hubert teaches all of the limitations as in claim 14, above.
However, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Hubert does not disclose wherein linked cloud elements reference accessible content to other cloud elements and from other graphical clouds.
Diament discloses wherein linked cloud elements reference accessible content to other cloud elements and from other graphical clouds (see [0028], [0033], where a shared tag cloud is connected to other tag clouds via a tag).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the word cloud as taught by Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz in view of Hubert with the linking to other graphical clouds as taught by Diament in order to create a shared information set to prevent miscommunications as well as disjoint sets of information (see Diament [0004]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz in view of Hubert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seolas (US 2011/0119220).
As to claim 16, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz in view of Hubert teaches all of the limitations as in claim 14, above.
However, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz in view of Hubert does not disclose wherein a URL construction is identified by detecting any combination of URL terms including the @ symbol, or ".domain" constructions. Other key words such as "website", "Internet", "Instagram account" trigger semantic analysis of adjacent content to determine if a link has been provided or pointed to.
Seolas does disclose wherein a URL construction is identified by detecting any combination of URL terms including the @ symbol, or ".domain" constructions and other key words including "website", "Internet", "Instagram account" trigger semantic analysis of adjacent content to determine if a link has been provided or pointed to (see [0051], where text is identified such as .com, interpreted to be domain in determining a link, where href, http, which are interpreted as the keywords)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the word cloud as taught by Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz in view of Hubert with the derivation as taught by Seolas in order to identify links referencing another web page to determine that the website identified will execute properly (See Seloas [0009]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz in view of Hubert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of O’Brien (US 6,055,569)
As to claim 17, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz in view of Hubert teaches all of the limitations as in claim 14, above.
However, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz in view of Hubert do not disclose wherein the system is configured to support metadata from content creators including linking instructions, wherein the system will detect the instruction, suppress the instructive content, and display the link in the appropriate location to the user.
O’Brien does disclose further comprising supporting metadata from content creators including linking instructions (see col. 3, lines 23-24, where developer can insert URL links into page), detecting the instruction, suppressing the instructive content, and displaying the link in the appropriate location to the user (see col. 3, lines 24-26, where a URL will cause client user to go to information from the link, which can comprise text, graphics, and audio or applets) (e.g. The Examiner interprets the taking of the client user to the information represented by the link to cause the suppression of original content in order to take user to the information (text, graphic, audio, applet)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the word cloud as taught by Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view Kaser in view of Sutz in view of Hubert with the content creator inclusion of a link as taught by O’Brien in order to permit the developer to have control to which links should be present in order to decrease network resources and cache space (see O’Brien col. 2, lines 1-12).
Claim 21-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz in view of Hubert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaudiano (US 2012/0084149).
As to claim 21, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Sutz in view of Kaser in view of Hubert teaches all of the limitations as in claim 14, above.
However, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Hubert does not disclose supporting advertisement linked cloud elements further comprising: providing a list of information for all cloud elements from graphical cloud to one or more ad networks: the ad networks interfacing with one or more advertisers to correlate available list data and advertiser data to construct and display ad information from the advertiser to the ad network for delivery to and incorporation by as part of the graphical cloud visualization.
Gaudiano does disclose supporting advertisement linked cloud elements further comprising: providing a list of information for all cloud elements from graphical cloud to one or more ad networks (see [0073], where text cloud generator selects one or more of the words or topics to the advertisement engine 112 which forwards to advertising servers): the ad networks interfacing with one or more advertisers to correlate available list data and advertiser data to construct and display ad information from the advertiser to the ad network for delivery to and incorporation by as part of the graphical cloud visualization (see [0073], where advertising engine 112 sends the words or topics to third part advertising servers which will be send to the system 100, and see [0076], where text cloud comprises some or all of the advertisements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the word cloud as taught by Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view Kaser in view of Sutz in view of Hubert with the advertising as taught by Gaudiano in order to provide enhanced keyword based advertising leading to a more user friendly browsing environment and reduction in off topic, irrelevant advertisements that tend to reduce user satisfaction (see Gaudiano [0019])
As to claim 22, Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view of Kaser in view of Sutz in view of Hubert in view of Gaudiano teaches all of the limitations as in claim 21, above.
Furthermore, Gaudiano discloses wherein information provided by the ad networks. in cooperation with one or more advertisers, to the graphical cloud is used for the selection and promotion of cloud elements to linked cloud elements within the graphical cloud visualization (see [0076], where text cloud generator generates a text cloud comprising some or all advertisements received and [0078], where the advertisements are displayed in association with the selected topic).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the word cloud as taught by Cox in view of Sweeney in view of Yadav in view Kaser in view of Sutz in view of Hubert with the advertising as taught by Gaudiano in order to provide enhanced keyword based advertising leading to a more user friendly browsing environment and reduction in off topic, irrelevant advertisements that tend to reduce user satisfaction (see Gaudiano [0019])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARAS D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-2:30PM, 5PM-7PM (EST), Friday 8AM-noon (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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.
/Paras D Shah/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
01/19/2026