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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed February 5, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 103 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, Applicant asserts Pujara does not teach a hierarchical structure. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Pujara was not relied on to teach such a concept.
Second, Applicant asserts Bingham does not teach the claimed hierarchical structure because Bingham does not teach providing preferences at various levels of a hierarchy, citing ¶[0047] of the present Specification. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., preferences at various levels of a hierarchy) 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). That is, the claims recite correlating user preferences with identified entities in a hierarchical structure. Pujara teaches correlating user preferences with identified entities (i.e., by identifying relevant ads using the user’s feedback, Pujara ¶[0043]), and Bingham teaches using identified entities in a hierarchical structure (i.e., using the authority level of the recipient, existing relationships between the recipient and the enterprise entities) to determine what types of requests or offers to send, Bingham ¶[0021]. Thus, the combination of Pujara and Bingham teaches correlating user preferences with identified entities in a hierarchical structure (i.e., by identifying relevant ads to send based on the user ratings and the authority level and existing relationships between the recipient and the enterprise entities).
Please note, to overcome this rejection, Examiner suggests amending the claims to explicitly recite storing the preferences at various levels of a hierarchy as stated ¶[0047] of the present Specification.
Third, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because the claims recite a unified process and none of the cited references alone teach all the limitations of the claim. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Fourth, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because Pujara, Bingham, and Odobetskiy are directed to different purposes. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Pujara, Bingham, and Odobetskiy are all directed adding useful functionalities to user interfaces in online content (i.e., user feedback in Pujara, feedback widgets in Bingham, and action widgets in Odobetskiy).
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by Applicant in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). Examiner asserts that Applicant only argues that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
Regarding the 101 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, Applicant asserts the claims recite a technical solution to a technical problem because existing systems rely on implicit feedback whereas the present claims insert feedback widgets. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent is not sufficient to show an improvement, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (discussing MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, it is not clear how adding feedback widgets reflect a technical solution to a technical problem because it is not clear how collecting data explicitly reflects a technical solution to collecting data implicitly (i.e., it is not clear how the different data collection techniques reflect an improvement).
Second, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because named entity recognition is not a general link to a field of use but is integral to the claims. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the claims recite using named entity recognition to identify objects in text which is what named entity recognition is used for. Thus, Examiner finds the use of named entity recognition is claimed too broadly and generally to be more than a general link to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Third, Applicant asserts inserting feedback widgets control is a specific technical implementation. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because providing an opportunity for customer to give feedback on products and services is a part of the abstract idea.
Fourth, Applicant asserts correlating user preferences with identified entities in a hierarchical structure is not merely storing data but instead enables extrapolation for unknown objects. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because correlating user preferences with identified entities in a hierarchical structure was not rejected as merely storing data, it was rejected as a part of the abstract idea. Further, Examiner notes that an improvement to an abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology, see MPEP 2106.05(a) (discussing Trading Techs). That is, even if correlating user preferences with identified entities in a hierarchical structure enables extrapolation for unknown objects this would be an improvement in the abstract idea (i.e. assessing customer satisfaction or performing market research) and not an improvement in a technology.
Fifth, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn citing Ex parte Carmody. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Ex parte Carmody is not binding on the present application and because Ex parte Carmody involved an improvement in training machine learning models for marketing and sales whereas the present application does not involve training machine learning models.
Sixth, Applicant asserts the 101 rejections strips the claims of their technical specify, citing Ex parte Desjardins, because the rejection characterizes the peripherical feedback model as data storage. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because correlating user preferences with identified entities in a hierarchical structure was not rejected as merely storing data, it was rejected as a part of the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the rejections are maintained, please see below for the complete rejections of the claims.
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 1-20 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 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-8 are directed to a process; and claims 9-20 are directed to a machine. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2.
Independent Claims
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 (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the independent claims recite an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…identifying an object included in a message addressed to a user by executing a named entity recognition (NER) routine, the object comprising an entity identified within text content of a body of the message;
inserting an explicit feedback control in the message inline with the text content and adjacent to the entity by analyzing the body of the message using entity extraction to identify the entity and inserting a feedback widget in the message to integrate the explicit feedback control with the identified entity, the explicit feedback control associated with the object and comprising interactive elements configured to capture user sentiment regarding the identified entity;
transmitting the message including the explicit feedback control to a client device of the user;
receiving feedback from the user in response to an interaction of the user with the explicit feedback control; and
updating a feedback model based on the received feedback, wherein the feedback model correlates user preferences with identified entities in a hierarchical structure and is used to filter future messages containing similar entities before delivery to the user.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors). These limitations encompass commercial or legal interactions (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors) because these limitations essentially encompass providing an opportunity for customer to give feedback on products, services, etc., receiving feedback from the customers, and using the feedback to choose future messages. That is, these limitations essentially encompass gathering and using customer feedback (i.e. assessing customer satisfaction or performing market research) which is a part of advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors because assessing customer satisfaction or performing market research are marketing or sales activities. Claims 1, 9, and 16 recite 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 limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The independent claims recite an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…identifying an object included in a message addressed to a user by executing a named entity recognition (NER) routine, the object comprising an entity identified within text content of a body of the message;
inserting an explicit feedback control in the message inline with the text content and adjacent to the entity by analyzing the body of the message using entity extraction to identify the entity and inserting a feedback widget in the message to integrate the explicit feedback control with the identified entity, the explicit feedback control associated with the object and comprising interactive elements configured to capture user sentiment regarding the identified entity;
transmitting the message including the explicit feedback control to a client device of the user;
receiving feedback from the user in response to an interaction of the user with the explicit feedback control; and
updating a feedback model based on the received feedback, wherein the feedback model correlates user preferences with identified entities in a hierarchical structure and is used to filter future messages containing similar entities before delivery to the user.
These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of using named entity recognition and entity extraction, 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., information extraction) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Second, the additional elements of inserting the explicit feedback control including interactive elements, transmitting the message, and an interaction with the explicit feedback control, 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 sending and receiving data (i.e., displaying a user interface with interactive elements for sending and receiving 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).
Independent claims 1, 9, and 16 further recite: a processor performing the various steps; a "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium"; and "a processor; and a storage medium", respectively. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, claims 1, 9 and 16 are 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).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than a general link to a field of use and mere instructions to apply the exception. A general link to a field of use and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 9 and 16 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because the object being one of the listed alternatives (e.g. text) is still a part of gathering customer feedback or conducting market research. That is, identifying text in a message for receiving feedback on is still a part of gathering customer feedback or conducting market research (e.g., seeking feedback on a customer support message or an offer).
Claims 3 and 10 recite the additional elements of using NER to identify the object. 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 (NER) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claims 4 and 11 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because the feedback including positive and negative options is still a part of gathering customer feedback or conducting market research.
Further the additional elements of the positive and negative feedback being control buttons, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generic computer functions (e.g. generic interface for receiving user input).
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 17, and 18 recite updating the model and storing the user preferences and feedback. These additional elements, as claimed under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass storing the feedback for use in modelling which, 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 storing data (i.e. storing user input), 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 7, 8, 14, 15, 19, and 20 recite editing and filtering future messages based on the received feedback. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea because these additional elements are only using software to tailor information and provide it to a user, which is not more than mere instructions to apply the exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (discussing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pujara US Pub. No. 2008/0300972, herein referred to as “Pujara”, in view of Bingham et al, US Pub. No. 2023/0024204, herein referred to as “Bingham”, further in view of Odobetskiy et al, US Pub. No. 2022/0237237, herein referred to as “Odobetskiy”.
Regarding claim 1, Pujara teaches:
identifying an object included in a message addressed to a user (advertisements are displayed in various areas of the screen, ¶[0044] and Fig. 5),
inserting an explicit feedback control in the message inline with the text content and adjacent to the entity by modifying the message to integrate the explicit feedback control with the identified entity the explicit feedback control associated with the object (adds user rating indicator next to and inline with message, ¶¶[0044], [0046] and Fig. 5, ref. char. 542);
and inserting a feedback widget in the message to integrate the explicit feedback control (adds user rating indicator next to the message, ¶¶[0044], [0046] and Fig. 5, ref. char. 542);
and comprising interactive elements configured to capture user sentiment regarding the identified entity (user rating indicator allows users to click on thumbs up or down symbol or star symbol, ¶¶[0044], [0046] and Fig. 5);
transmitting, by the processor, the message including the explicit feedback control to a client device of the user (displays advertisements with rating ability, ¶¶[0044], [0050], and Figs. 6-8);
receiving, by the processor, feedback from the user in response to an interaction of the user with the explicit feedback control (sends information representative of the user's selected rating to a server for collection and processing, ¶[0046]);
and updating, by the processor, a feedback model based on the received feedback, wherein the feedback model correlates user preferences and is used to filter future messages containing similar entities before delivery to the user (uses data collected from the user to filter advertisements and find relevant ads, ¶[0043]).
However Pujara does not teach but Bingham does teach:
identifying, by a processor executing a named entity recognition (NER) routine, an object included in a message addressed to a user (analyzes body of email using entity extraction, ¶[0024]; see also ¶¶[0025], [0031] discussing processor)
the object comprising an entity identified within text content of a body of the message (identifies various parts of the email including text in the body, ¶[0035]; see also ¶[0024] discussing entity extraction);
inserting an explicit feedback control in the message by modifying the message to integrate the explicit feedback control with the identified entity (inserts feedback widget in email, ¶[0045])
user preferences with identified entities in a hierarchical structure (recipient profiles define the authority level of the recipient, existing relationships between the recipient and the enterprise entities, ¶¶[0021], [0045])
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising relevancy scoring of Pujara with the email widgets of Bingham because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Pujara may not only be interested in providing feedback and may be interested in more functionalities in an email and accordingly would have modified Bingham to include more functionalities, e.g. those taught in Bingham.
However the combination of Pujara and Bingham does not teach but Odobetskiy does teach:
analyzing the body of the message using entity extraction to identify the entity and inserting a feedback widget in the message to integrate the explicit feedback control with the identified entity (uses named-entity recognition (NER) techniques to locate organization names, tradeable objects, etc. that are mentioned in the text of the document, ¶[0072], and adds user interface elements for actions corresponding to the tradeable objects, ¶[0075]; see also Fig. 3 summarizing process; and ¶¶[0073], [0074] discussing associated process).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising relevancy scoring with email widgets of Pujara and Bingham with the insertion of user interface elements based on related text because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Pujara and Bingham may want to automatically add feedback opportunities whenever certain concepts appear in advertisements and accordingly would have modified Pujara and Bingham to detect and these concepts and add user interface elements when these concepts appear, e.g., as taught by Odobetskiy.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Pujara further teaches:
wherein the object comprises one of text, audio, video, or graphical content (advertisements are textual and graphical, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Bingham further teaches:
wherein identifying an object include in a message comprises identifying the object using a named entity recognition (NER) routine (uses entity extraction, ¶[0024]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising relevancy scoring of Pujara with the email widgets of Bingham because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Pujara may not only be interested in providing feedback and may be interested in more functionalities in an email and accordingly would have modified Bingham to include more functionalities, e.g. those taught in Bingham.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Pujara further teaches:
wherein the explicit feedback control comprises a positive feedback control button and a negative feedback control button (rating indicators includes thumbs up and thumbs down, ¶[0044] and Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Pujara further teaches:
updating a feedback model based on the feedback from the user (future advertisements are based on feedback data collected, ¶¶[0016], [0062]; see also ¶¶[0035], [0054] discussing scoring relevancy),
the feedback model storing preferences of the user with respect to objects identified in messages addressed to the user (records user activity like which advertisement the user rated, what the rating is, and any additional feedback relating to the advertisement and/or the web page the use, ¶[0035]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and Pujara further teaches:
updating the explicit feedback control based on previous feedback of the user with respect to the object, the previous feedback stored in the feedback model (records user activity like which advertisement the user rated, what the rating is, and any additional feedback relating to the advertisement and/or the web page the use, ¶[0035]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and Pujara further teaches:
receiving, by the processor, a third message addressed to a user (ad server provides relevant ads, ¶[0042]);
identifying, by the processor, a third object included in the third message (advertisements are displayed in various areas of the screen, ¶[0044] and Fig. 5);
reading, by the processor, a user preference for the third object using the feedback model; and filtering, by the processor, the third message based on the user preference (filters advertisements using data collected on the user to find relevant ads, ¶[0043]; see also ¶[0054] and Fig. 7 discussing displaying ads based on user relevancy data).
Regarding claim 9, Pujara teaches:
identifying an object included in a message addressed to a user (advertisements are displayed in various areas of the screen, ¶[0044] and Fig. 5),
inserting an explicit feedback control in the message inline with the text content and adjacent to the entity by modifying the message to integrate the explicit feedback control with the identified entity the explicit feedback control associated with the object (adds user rating indicator next to and inline with message, ¶¶[0044], [0046] and Fig. 5, ref. char. 542);
and inserting a feedback widget in the message to integrate the explicit feedback control (adds user rating indicator next to the message, ¶¶[0044], [0046] and Fig. 5, ref. char. 542);
and comprising interactive elements configured to capture user sentiment regarding the identified entity (user rating indicator allows users to click on thumbs up or down symbol or star symbol, ¶¶[0044], [0046] and Fig. 5);
transmitting, by the processor, the message including the explicit feedback control to a client device of the user (displays advertisements with rating ability, ¶¶[0044], [0050], and Figs. 6-8);
receiving, by the processor, feedback from the user in response to an interaction of the user with the explicit feedback control (sends information representative of the user's selected rating to a server for collection and processing, ¶[0046]);
and updating, by the processor, a feedback model based on the received feedback, wherein the feedback model correlates user preferences and is used to filter future messages containing similar entities before delivery to the user (uses data collected from the user to filter advertisements and find relevant ads, ¶[0043]).
However Pujara does not teach but Bingham does teach:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for tangibly storing computer program instructions capable of being executed by a computer processor, the computer program instructions defining steps of (memory and instructions, e.g. ¶¶[0027], [0029]):
identifying an object included in a message addressed to a user by executing a named entity recognition (NER) routine (analyzes body of email using entity extraction; see also ¶¶[0025], [0031] discussing processor)
the object comprising an entity identified within text content of a body of the message (identifies various parts of the email including text in the body, ¶[0035]; see also ¶[0024] discussing entity extraction);
inserting an explicit feedback control in the message by modifying the message to integrate the explicit feedback control with the identified entity (inserts feedback widget in email, ¶[0045])
user preferences with identified entities in a hierarchical structure (recipient profiles define the authority level of the recipient, existing relationships between the recipient and the enterprise entities, ¶¶[0021], [0045]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising relevancy scoring of Pujara with the email widgets of Bingham because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Pujara may not only be interested in providing feedback and may be interested in more functionalities in an email and accordingly would have modified Bingham to include more functionalities, e.g. those taught in Bingham.
However the combination of Pujara and Bingham does not teach but Odobetskiy does teach:
analyzing the body of the message using entity extraction to identify the entity and inserting a feedback widget in the message to integrate the explicit feedback control with the identified entity (uses named-entity recognition (NER) techniques to locate organization names, tradeable objects, etc. that are mentioned in the text of the document, ¶[0072], and adds user interface elements for actions corresponding to the tradeable objects, ¶[0075]; see also Fig. 3 summarizing process; and ¶¶[0073], [0074] discussing associated process).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising relevancy scoring with email widgets of Pujara and Bingham with the insertion of user interface elements based on related text because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Pujara and Bingham may want to automatically add feedback opportunities whenever certain concepts appear in advertisements and accordingly would have modified Pujara and Bingham to detect and these concepts and add user interface elements when these concepts appear, e.g., as taught by Odobetskiy.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy teaches all the limitations of claim 9 and Bingham further teaches:
wherein identifying an object include in a message comprises identifying the object using a named entity recognition (NER) routine (uses entity extraction, ¶[0024]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising relevancy scoring of Pujara with the email widgets of Bingham because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Pujara may not only be interested in providing feedback and may be interested in more functionalities in an email and accordingly would have modified Bingham to include more functionalities, e.g. those taught in Bingham.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy teaches all the limitations of claim 9 and Pujara further teaches:
wherein the explicit feedback control comprises a positive feedback control button and a negative feedback control button (rating indicators includes thumbs up and thumbs down, ¶[0044] and Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, the combination Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy teaches all the limitations of claim 9 and Pujara further teaches:
updating a feedback model based on the feedback from the user (future advertisements are based on feedback data collected, ¶¶[0016], [0062]; see also ¶¶[0035], [0054] discussing scoring relevancy),
the feedback model storing preferences of the user with respect to objects identified in messages addressed to the user (records user activity like which advertisement the user rated, what the rating is, and any additional feedback relating to the advertisement and/or the web page the use, ¶[0035]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and Pujara further teaches:
updating the explicit feedback control based on previous feedback of the user with respect to the object, the previous feedback stored in the feedback model (records user activity like which advertisement the user rated, what the rating is, and any additional feedback relating to the advertisement and/or the web page the use, ¶[0035]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and Pujara further teaches:
receiving a third message addressed to a user (ad server provides relevant ads, ¶[0042]);
identifying a third object included in the third message (advertisements are displayed in various areas of the screen, ¶[0044] and Fig. 5);
reading a user preference for the third object using the feedback model; and filtering the third message based on the user preference (filters advertisements using data collected on the user to find relevant ads, ¶[0043]; see also ¶[0054] and Fig. 7 discussing displaying ads based on user relevancy data).
Regarding claim 16, Pujara teaches:
identifying an object included in a message addressed to a user (advertisements are displayed in various areas of the screen, ¶[0044] and Fig. 5),
inserting an explicit feedback control in the message inline with the text content and adjacent to the entity by modifying the message to integrate the explicit feedback control with the identified entity the explicit feedback control associated with the object (adds user rating indicator next to and inline with message, ¶¶[0044], [0046] and Fig. 5, ref. char. 542);
and comprising interactive elements configured to capture user sentiment regarding the identified entity (user rating indicator allows users to click on thumbs up or down symbol or star symbol, ¶¶[0044], [0046] and Fig. 5);
transmitting, by the processor, the message including the explicit feedback control to a client device of the user (displays advertisements with rating ability, ¶¶[0044], [0050], and Figs. 6-8);
receiving, by the processor, feedback from the user in response to an interaction of the user with the explicit feedback control (sends information representative of the user's selected rating to a server for collection and processing, ¶[0046]);
and updating, by the processor, a feedback model based on the received feedback, wherein the feedback model correlates user preferences and is used to filter future messages containing similar entities before delivery to the user (uses data collected from the user to filter advertisements and find relevant ads, ¶[0043]).
However Pujara does not teach but Bingham does teach:
a processor; and a storage medium for tangibly storing thereon logic for execution by the processor, the logic comprising instructions for (memory, processor and instructions, e.g. ¶¶[0027], [0029], [0031]):
identifying an object included in a message addressed to a user by executing a named entity recognition (NER) routine (analyzes body of email using entity extraction; see also ¶¶[0025], [0031] discussing processor)
the object comprising an entity identified within text content of a body of the message (identifies various parts of the email including text in the body, ¶[0035]; see also ¶[0024] discussing entity extraction);
inserting an explicit feedback control in the message by modifying the message to integrate the explicit feedback control with the identified entity (inserts feedback widget in email, ¶[0045])
user preferences with identified entities in a hierarchical structure (recipient profiles define the authority level of the recipient, existing relationships between the recipient and the enterprise entities, ¶¶[0021], [0045])
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising relevancy scoring of Pujara with the email widgets of Bingham because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Pujara may not only be interested in providing feedback and may be interested in more functionalities in an email and accordingly would have modified Bingham to include more functionalities, e.g. those taught in Bingham.
However the combination of Pujara and Bingham does not teach but Odobetskiy does teach:
analyzing the body of the message using entity extraction to identify the entity and inserting a feedback widget in the message to integrate the explicit feedback control with the identified entity (uses named-entity recognition (NER) techniques to locate organization names, tradeable objects, etc. that are mentioned in the text of the document, ¶[0072], and adds user interface elements for actions corresponding to the tradeable objects, ¶[0075]; see also Fig. 3 summarizing process; and ¶¶[0073], [0074] discussing associated process).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising relevancy scoring with email widgets of Pujara and Bingham with the insertion of user interface elements based on related text because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the users of Pujara and Bingham may want to automatically add feedback opportunities whenever certain concepts appear in advertisements and accordingly would have modified Pujara and Bingham to detect and these concepts and add user interface elements when these concepts appear, e.g., as taught by Odobetskiy.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and Pujara further teaches:
updating a feedback model based on the feedback from the user (future advertisements are based on feedback data collected, ¶¶[0016], [0062]; see also ¶¶[0035], [0054] discussing scoring relevancy),
the feedback model storing preferences of the user with respect to objects identified in messages addressed to the user (records user activity like which advertisement the user rated, what the rating is, and any additional feedback relating to the advertisement and/or the web page the use, ¶[0035]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Pujara further teaches:
updating the explicit feedback control based on previous feedback of the user with respect to the object, the previous feedback stored in the feedback model (records user activity like which advertisement the user rated, what the rating is, and any additional feedback relating to the advertisement and/or the web page the use, ¶[0035]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Pujara further teaches:
receiving a third message addressed to a user (ad server provides relevant ads, ¶[0042]);
identifying a third object included in the third message (advertisements are displayed in various areas of the screen, ¶[0044] and Fig. 5);
reading a user preference for the third object using the feedback model; and filtering the third message based on the user preference (filters advertisements using data collected on the user to find relevant ads, ¶[0043]; see also ¶[0054] and Fig. 7 discussing displaying ads based on user relevancy data).
Claim(s) 7, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy in view of Kannan et al, US Pub. No. 2017/0364930, herein referred to as “Kannan”.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and Pujara further teaches:
receiving, by the processor, a second message from a sender, the second message received prior to delivery to the user (ad server provides relevant ads, ¶[0042]);
identifying, by the processor, a second object included in the second message addressed to a user (advertisements are displayed in various areas of the screen, ¶[0044] and Fig. 5);
However the combination of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy does not teach but Kannan does teach:
reading, by the processor, a user preference for the second object using the feedback model; and providing, by the processor, at least one suggestion regarding how to edit the second message to the sender (makes various recommendations like recommending similar products when a product desired by the customer is out of stock, recommending a style of conversation to the agent during an interaction, presenting a different set of productivity or visual widgets to agents with specific persona types on the agent interaction platform, etc. ¶¶[0058]-[0059]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising relevancy scoring with the email widgets of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy with the recommendations of Kannan because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the feedback received in Pujara would also be useful for identifying recommendations for alternative products or styles of interactions, as taught by Kannan, and accordingly would have modified Pujara to make the recommendations.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and Pujara further teaches:
receiving a second message from a sender, the second message received prior to delivery to the user (ad server provides relevant ads, ¶[0042]);
identifying a second object included in the second message addressed to a user (advertisements are displayed in various areas of the screen, ¶[0044] and Fig. 5);
However the combination of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy does not teach but Kannan does teach:
reading a user preference for the second object using the feedback model; and providing at least one suggestion regarding how to edit the second message to the sender (makes various recommendations like recommending similar products when a product desired by the customer is out of stock, recommending a style of conversation to the agent during an interaction, presenting a different set of productivity or visual widgets to agents with specific persona types on the agent interaction platform, etc. ¶¶[0058]-[0059]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising relevancy scoring with the email widgets of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy with the recommendations of Kannan because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the feedback received in Pujara would also be useful for identifying recommendations for alternative products or styles of interactions, as taught by Kannan, and accordingly would have modified Pujara to make the recommendations.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and Pujara further teaches:
receiving a second message from a sender, the second message received prior to delivery to the user (ad server provides relevant ads, ¶[0042]);
identifying a second object included in the second message addressed to a user (advertisements are displayed in various areas of the screen, ¶[0044] and Fig. 5);
However the combination of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy does not teach but Kannan does teach:
reading a user preference for the second object using the feedback model; and providing at least one suggestion regarding how to edit the second message to the sender (makes various recommendations like recommending similar products when a product desired by the customer is out of stock, recommending a style of conversation to the agent during an interaction, presenting a different set of productivity or visual widgets to agents with specific persona types on the agent interaction platform, etc. ¶¶[0058]-[0059]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the advertising relevancy scoring with the email widgets of Pujara, Bingham and Odobetskiy with the recommendations of Kannan because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the feedback received in Pujara would also be useful for identifying recommendations for alternative products or styles of interactions, as taught by Kannan, and accordingly would have modified Pujara to make the recommendations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. 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 (571) 270-3923. 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