Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent.
Claims 2-10 depend from Claim 1.
Claims 12-19 depend from Claim 11.
This Application was published as U.S. 2023/0113491.
Response to Amendment
Examiner thanks Applicant for response filed on 4 Nov 2025 which has been correspondingly accepted and considered in this office action. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 Nov 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Each argument of Applicant’s arguments will be addressed in turn.
With regards to priority claim:
Applicant's arguments filed 4 Nov 2025 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Applicant’s priority claim has been restored.
With regards to 35 USC § 101:
Applicant's arguments filed 4 Nov 2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 35 USC § 101 has been withdrawn.
With regards to 35 USC § 102:
Applicant’s arguments filed 4 Nov 2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9-13, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-13, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myslinski (US2013/0151240 hereinafter Myslinski) in view of Khare et al. (US2022/0230174 hereinafter Khare)
With regards to claim 1, Myslinski teaches:
A method comprising: in a computing system implementing a disputed claims service: [Myslinski Fig 1 teaches fact checking system which implements disputed claims service]
extracting first claims from language in a set of electronic content items, [Myslinski Fig 1 item 100, Par [0101] teaches monitoring the information, where the information “is any information including, but not limited to, television audio, video or text, other text, radio, television broadcasts/shows, radio broadcasts, word processing data and/or documents, email, Twitter (tweets), message boards, web pages including, but not limited to, Facebook.RTM. postings and web logs, any computing device communication, telephone calls, face-to-face conversations, VoIP calls (e.g. Skype.TM.), video conferencing, live speech and any other information” which are electronic content items. Myslinski also teaches extracting first claims in Fig 1 step 102, where processing the information by “Parsing, for example, includes separating a long speech into separate phrases that are each separately fact checked.” (Par [0102])]
wherein each claim of the first claims comprises a statement of fact being made by an entity; [Myslinski Par [0102] teaches “speech may include 100 different facts that should be separately fact checked” where speech comprises statement of facts]
determining disputed claim of the first claims, wherein the disputed claim is a claim of the first claims that includes a first statement of fact indicated as being untrue by at least one other claim of the first claims [Myslinski Example 3, Par [0109] teaches first statement of fact is untrue that “Tiger came in eighth this week” where at least one other claim of the first claims is the named golfer, date of the post, and “additional data such as knowing when the commentary was written and that the user is an avid golf fan, after monitoring this information, converting the information including adding the context of Tiger Woods (the famous golfer), at the Masters, in 2011, the fact checker is then able to compare this information with the results of that specific tournament for that specific golfer”]
and wherein the at least one other claim is made by one or more disputing entities; [Myslinski teaches “comparing the information to one or more sources of information” (Par [0104]) where sources of information are one or more disputing entities]
receiving a disputed-claim query from a user for disputed-claim information from one or more of the disputed-claim records; [Myslinski teaches using search engines and user queries for fact checking (Fig 57-62, Par [0391])]
searching the disputed-claim repository for the disputed-claim information; and [Myslinski Fig 58 item 5800]
providing the disputed-claim information in response to the disputed-claim query. [Myslinski Fig 61-62 item 6202 and 6206]
With regards to claim 1, Myslinski fails to teach:
populating a disputed-claim repository with disputed-claim records, wherein the disputed-claim repository includes computer-readable storage media for storing the disputed-claim records, and wherein the populating of each of the disputed-claim records includes:
creating a disputed-claim record indicating the disputed claim, one or more supporting entities that support the disputed claim, and the one or more disputing entities; and
storing the disputed-claim record in the disputed-claim repository;
With regards to claim 1, Khare teaches:
populating a disputed-claim repository with disputed-claim records, wherein the disputed-claim repository includes computer-readable storage media for storing the disputed-claim records, and wherein the populating of each of the disputed-claim records includes: [Khare Fig 1, 4, and 5 teaches data monitoring system (106) that populates disputed-claims repository (250) via distributed register application (17) (Par [0058]) where data monitoring system includes computer-readable storage media (142) (Par [0040]) and repository (250) is part of the disputed claims service where “embodiments of the present invention may take the form of a computer program product that includes a computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable program code portions stored therein” (Par [0087])]
creating a disputed-claim record indicating the disputed claim, one or more supporting entities that support the disputed claim, and the one or more disputing entities; and [Khare Fig 5 teaches creating a disputed claim record (302) for the repository (250) which includes supporting entities (301 and 302) and disputing entities which contains data (329) (Par [0064])]
storing the disputed-claim record in the disputed-claim repository; [Khare Fig 5]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of applicant’s effective filing date to combine the teachings of the fact checker system as taught by Myslinski with the disputed data system as taught by Khare. The motivation to combine the inventions of Myslinski with Khare invention “includes a system and methods designed to embrace the use of machine learning in conjunction with the immutable storage of a distributed register in order to simplify and improve efficiency in transaction dispute resolution processes” (Par [0031]) which increases the capabilities of the invention of Myslinski]
With regards to claim 2, Myslinski in view of Khare teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
comprising: retrieving the set of electronic content items over a communication network from one or more content item repositories. [Myslinski Fig 5 Par [0123]]
With regards to claim 3, Myslinski in view of Khare teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
comprising: iteratively retrieving a first portion of the set of electronic content items that are new since a previous retrieval of a second portion of the set of electronic content items. [Myslinski Par [0141] teaches “fact checking is updated as information changes. For example, saying X is running for President may be labeled as "uncertain" at one point, but then when X officially declares that he is running, the label is changed to "true."”]
With regards to claim 6, Myslinski in view of Khare teaches:
wherein extracting the first claims comprises: passing the set of electronic content items through a Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithm trained to recognize language used when making a claim. [Khare Fig 1 teaches machine learning engine (146) as part of data monitoring system and the “system described herein utilizes a natural language processing” (Par [0033])]
With regards to claim 7, Myslinski in view of Khare teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein determining the disputed claim comprises:
determining that facts about an event in the disputed claim differ from facts about the event in one or more other claims of the first claims. [Myslinski Example 3, Par [0109] teaches first statement of fact is untrue that “Tiger came in eighth this week” where at least one other claim of the first claims is the named golfer, date of the post, and “additional data such as knowing when the commentary was written and that the user is an avid golf fan, after monitoring this information, converting the information including adding the context of Tiger Woods (the famous golfer), at the Masters, in 2011, the fact checker is then able to compare this information with the results of that specific tournament for that specific golfer”]
With regards to claim 9, Myslinski in view of Khare teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein the set of electronic content items includes one or more of media types including news articles, blog posts, social media posts, videos, and podcasts. [Myslinski Par [0101] teaches “The information to be monitored is any information including, but not limited to, television audio, video or text, other text, radio, television broadcasts/shows, radio broadcasts, word processing data and/or documents, email, Twitter (tweets), message boards, web pages including, but not limited to, Facebook.RTM. postings and web logs, any computing device communication, telephone calls, face-to-face conversations, VoIP calls (e.g. Skype.TM.), video conferencing, live speech and any other information”]
With regards to claim 10, Myslinski in view of Khare teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
wherein the computing system comprises a user device of the user. [Myslinski Fig 5, Par [0127-128] teaches “In another example, when a user is watching television, the user's smart phone monitors and processes information from the television and sends the information to be fact checked, and then the results are sent from the user's smart phone to the television to be presented. Any combination of devices performing the fact checking system is possible” where it is possible for the user device to act as the computing system]
With regards to claim 11, Myslinski teaches:
An apparatus for implementing a disputed claims service, the apparatus comprising: one or more computer readable storage media; [Myslinski Fig 4 Par [0120] teaches storage device (412) and memory (404) which are one or more computer readable storage media]
a processing system operatively coupled with the one or more computer readable storage media; and [Myslinski Fig 4 item 406, Par [0120]]
program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media that, when read and executed by the processing system, direct the apparatus to: [Myslinski Fig 4 Par [0102] teaches “fact checking applications 430 are programmed in a memory and executed using a processor” which are program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media that, when read and executed by the processing system, direct the apparatus]
extract first claims from language in a set of electronic content items, [Myslinski Fig 1 item 100, Par [0101] teaches monitoring the information, where the information “is any information including, but not limited to, television audio, video or text, other text, radio, television broadcasts/shows, radio broadcasts, word processing data and/or documents, email, Twitter (tweets), message boards, web pages including, but not limited to, Facebook.RTM. postings and web logs, any computing device communication, telephone calls, face-to-face conversations, VoIP calls (e.g. Skype.TM.), video conferencing, live speech and any other information” which are electronic content items. Myslinski also teaches extracting first claims in Fig 1 step 102, where processing the information by “Parsing, for example, includes separating a long speech into separate phrases that are each separately fact checked.” (Par [0102])]
wherein each claim of the first claims comprises a statement of fact being made by an entity; [Myslinski Par [0102] teaches “speech may include 100 different facts that should be separately fact checked” where speech comprises statement of facts]
determine a disputed claim of the first claims, wherein the disputed claim is a claim of the first claims that includes a first statement of fact indicated as being untrue by at least one other claim of the first claims [Myslinski Example 3, Par [0109] teaches first statement of fact is untrue that “Tiger came in eighth this week” where at least one other claim of the first claims is the named golfer, date of the post, and “additional data such as knowing when the commentary was written and that the user is an avid golf fan, after monitoring this information, converting the information including adding the context of Tiger Woods (the famous golfer), at the Masters, in 2011, the fact checker is then able to compare this information with the results of that specific tournament for that specific golfer”]
and wherein the at least one other claim is made by one or more disputing entities; [Myslinski teaches “comparing the information to one or more sources of information” (Par [0104]) where sources of information are one or more disputing entities]
receive a disputed-claim query from a user for disputed-claim information from one or more of the disputed-claim records; [Myslinski teaches using search engines and user queries for fact checking (Fig 57-62, Par [0391])]
search the disputed-claim repository for the disputed-claim information; and [Myslinski Fig 58 item 5800]
provide the disputed-claim information in response to the disputed-claim query. [Myslinski Fig 61-62 item 6202 and 6206]
With regards to claim 11, Myslinski fails to teach:
populate a disputed-claim repository with disputed-claim records, wherein the disputed-claim repository includes computer-readable storage media for storing the disputed-claim records, and wherein steps to populate each of the disputed-claim records includes:
create a disputed-claim record indicating the disputed claim, one or more supporting entities that support the disputed claim, and the one or more disputing entities; and
store the disputed-claim record in the disputed-claim repository;
With regards to claim 11, Khare teaches:
populate a disputed-claim repository with disputed-claim records, wherein the disputed-claim repository includes computer-readable storage media for storing the disputed-claim records, and wherein steps to populate each of the disputed-claim records includes: [Khare Fig 1, 4, and 5 teaches data monitoring system (106) that populates disputed-claims repository (250) via distributed register application (17) (Par [0058]) where data monitoring system includes computer-readable storage media (142) (Par [0040]) and repository (250) is part of the disputed claims service where “embodiments of the present invention may take the form of a computer program product that includes a computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable program code portions stored therein” (Par [0087])]
create a disputed-claim record indicating the disputed claim, one or more supporting entities that support the disputed claim, and the one or more disputing entities; and [Khare Fig 5 teaches creating a disputed claim record (302) for the repository (250) which includes supporting entities (301 and 302) and disputing entities which contains data (329) (Par [0064])]
store the disputed-claim record in the disputed-claim repository; [Khare Fig 5]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of applicant’s effective filing date to combine the teachings of the fact checker system as taught by Myslinski with the disputed data system as taught by Khare. The motivation to combine the inventions of Myslinski with Khare invention “includes a system and methods designed to embrace the use of machine learning in conjunction with the immutable storage of a distributed register in order to simplify and improve efficiency in transaction dispute resolution processes” (Par [0031]) which increases the capabilities of the invention of Myslinski]
Claim 12 is an apparatus claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 is an apparatus claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 is an apparatus claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 is an apparatus claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 is an apparatus claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 9 and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 20, Myslinski teaches:
One or more non-transitory computer readable storage media having program instructions stored thereon for implementing a disputed claims service, the program instructions, when read and executed by a processing system, direct the processing system to: [Myslinski Fig 4 Par [0120] teaches storage device (412) and memory (404) which are one or more computer readable storage media and “fact checking applications 430 are programmed in a memory and executed using a processor” which are program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media that, when read and executed by the processing system, direct the processing system]
extract first claims from language in a set of electronic content items, wherein each claim of the first claims comprises a statement of fact being made by an entity; [Myslinski Fig 1 item 100, Par [0101] teaches monitoring the information, where the information “is any information including, but not limited to, television audio, video or text, other text, radio, television broadcasts/shows, radio broadcasts, word processing data and/or documents, email, Twitter (tweets), message boards, web pages including, but not limited to, Facebook.RTM. postings and web logs, any computing device communication, telephone calls, face-to-face conversations, VoIP calls (e.g. Skype.TM.), video conferencing, live speech and any other information” which are electronic content items. Myslinski also teaches extracting first claims in Fig 1 step 102, where processing the information by “Parsing, for example, includes separating a long speech into separate phrases that are each separately fact checked.” (Par [0102])]
determine a disputed claim of the first claims, wherein the disputed claim is a claim of the first claims that includes a first statement of fact indicated as being untrue by at least one other claim of the first claims [Myslinski Example 3, Par [0109] teaches first statement of fact is untrue that “Tiger came in eighth this week” where at least one other claim of the first claims is the named golfer, date of the post, and “additional data such as knowing when the commentary was written and that the user is an avid golf fan, after monitoring this information, converting the information including adding the context of Tiger Woods (the famous golfer), at the Masters, in 2011, the fact checker is then able to compare this information with the results of that specific tournament for that specific golfer”]
and wherein the at least one other claim is made by one or more disputing entities; [Myslinski teaches “comparing the information to one or more sources of information” (Par [0104]) where sources of information are one or more disputing entities]
receive a disputed-claim query from a user for disputed-claim information from one or more of the disputed-claim records; [Myslinski teaches using search engines and user queries for fact checking (Fig 57-62, Par [0391])]
search the disputed-claim repository for the disputed-claim information; and [Myslinski Fig 58 item 5800]
provide the disputed-claim information in response to the disputed-claim query. [Myslinski Fig 61-62 item 6202 and 6206]
With regards to claim 20, Myslinski fails to teach:
populate a disputed-claim repository with disputed-claim records, wherein the disputed-claim repository includes computer-readable storage media for storing the disputed-claim records, and wherein steps to populate each of the disputed-claim records includes:
create a disputed-claim record indicating the disputed claim, one or more supporting entities that support the disputed claim, and the one or more disputing entities; and
store the disputed-claim record in the disputed-claim repository;
With regards to claim 20, Khare teaches:
populate a disputed-claim repository with disputed-claim records, wherein the disputed-claim repository includes computer-readable storage media for storing the disputed-claim records, and wherein steps to populate each of the disputed-claim records includes: [Khare Fig 1, 4, and 5 teaches data monitoring system (106) that populates disputed-claims repository (250) via distributed register application (17) (Par [0058]) where data monitoring system includes computer-readable storage media (142) (Par [0040]) and repository (250) is part of the disputed claims service where “embodiments of the present invention may take the form of a computer program product that includes a computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable program code portions stored therein” (Par [0087])]
create a disputed-claim record indicating the disputed claim, one or more supporting entities that support the disputed claim, and the one or more disputing entities; and [Khare Fig 5 teaches creating a disputed claim record (302) for the repository (250) which includes supporting entities (301 and 302) and disputing entities which contains data (329) (Par [0064])]
store the disputed-claim record in the disputed-claim repository; [Khare Fig 5]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of applicant’s effective filing date to combine the teachings of the fact checker system as taught by Myslinski with the disputed data system as taught by Khare. The motivation to combine the inventions of Myslinski with Khare invention “includes a system and methods designed to embrace the use of machine learning in conjunction with the immutable storage of a distributed register in order to simplify and improve efficiency in transaction dispute resolution processes” (Par [0031]) which increases the capabilities of the invention of Myslinski]
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myslinski (US2013/0151240) in view of Khare et al.(US2022/0230174) in further view of D’Agostino et al. (US 2020/0099633 hereinafter D’Agostino).
With regards to claim 4, Myslinski in view of Khare teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
With regards to claim 4, Myslinski in view of Khare fails to teach:
in response to identifying a second instance of the disputed claim in the set of electronic content items, updating the disputed-claim record based on the second instance.
With regards to claim 4, D’Agostino teaches:
in response to identifying a second instance of the disputed claim in the set of electronic content items, updating the disputed-claim record based on the second instance. [D’Agostino Fig 2, Par [0065] teaches “user can provide a response back” which is a second instance of the disputed claim in a second content time. The record is updated after decision engine (Item 212) compares the user intent of the response back, (Par [0065]) which is based on the second instance).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of applicant’s effective filing date to combine the teachings of the fact checker system as taught by Myslinski and Khare with the chat bot manager as taught by D’Agostino. The motivation to combine the inventions of Myslinski with D’Agostino is because chat bot management “management of multi-channels for multi-interaction customer conversations across various subject matters” (Par [0024]) which increases the capabilities of the invention of Myslinski and Khare]
With regards to claim 5, Myslinski in view of Khare and D’Agostino teaches:
All the limitations of claim 4
With regards to claim 5, Myslinski in view of Khare fails to teach:
wherein the second instance phrases the disputed claim differently than another instance.
With regards to claim 5, D’Agostino teaches:
wherein the second instance phrases the disputed claim differently than another instance. [D’Agostino Fig 2, Par [0065] teaches the response back from the user is the second instance and is stored as the new conversation input and the “chat bot decision engine 212 can compare the determined intent of the new conversational input 204 to the stored indication describing the intent and the determined chat bot from the last conversation.” The new conversation input becomes the basis of the response to the user, where the “chat bot filter module 230 edits the generated phrase” or response to the user based on various factors. Par [0063])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of applicant’s effective filing date to combine the teachings of the fact checker system as taught by Myslinski and Khare with the chat bot manager as taught by D’Agostino. The motivation to combine the inventions of Myslinski and Khare with D’Agostino is because chat bot management “management of multi-channels for multi-interaction customer conversations across various subject matters” (Par [0024]) which increases the capabilities of the invention of Myslinski and Khare]
Claim 14 is an apparatus claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 is an apparatus claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myslinski (US2013/0151240) and Khare et al. (US2022/0230174) in view of Bell (US 2012/0254219 hereinafter Bell).
With regards to claim 8, Myslinski in view of Khare teaches:
All the limitations of claim 1
With regards to claim 8, Myslinski in view of Khare fails to teach:
wherein the disputed-claim query comprise a Boolean search query.
With regards to claim 8, Bell teaches:
wherein the disputed-claim query comprise a Boolean search query. [Bell Fig 1, Par [0016] teaches users can “enter Boolean operators (e.g., "OR", "AND", "XOR" (exclusive OR), "NOT" or other Boolean operators) between key words in the text boxes.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Myslinski and Khare by incorporating the teachings of Bell. In particular, Bell teaches various embodiments of Boolean search queries, and it would be obvious to create a Boolean search query and combine it with the search query as taught by Myslinski Fig 58.
The motivation to combine the teachings of Bell, Myslinski, and Khare is because Bell teaches various Boolean search queries, and combining the Boolean search query with the search query of Myslinski would increase the capabilities of the invention of Myslinski and Khare.
Claim 18 is an apparatus claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of method Claim 8 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Joseph J Yamamoto whose telephone number is (571)272-4020. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1000-1800 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
JOSEPH J. YAMAMOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 2656
/BHAVESH M MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2656