DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2022 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
1. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17: “chat serviceer” should instead be “chat service”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, “A processor-implemented method”, “A computer system”, and “A computer program product” are recited, with the method and system directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, system) (Step 1: YES). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes which fall into the category of abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1: YES).
The following limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes:
identifying one or more skills levels for one or more users: a person determines a skill level of users (e.g. determines a first user is an expert in a particular subject, whereas the second user is a novice)
identifying a complexity level corresponding to a piece of content: a person determines how complex a piece of content is (e.g. determines a scientific research paper has a high complexity)
determining an explanation level for the piece of content based on the complexity level of the piece of content and a target skill level from the one or more skill levels: person determines a level of explanation to give (e.g. for a high complexity level research paper for a novice user, using a high explanation level)
generating an explanation for the piece of content according to the explanation level: person writes down an explanation using pen and paper and using the explanation level (e.g. for the complex article being read by the novice user, writing down a simpler explanation)
providing the explanation to a target user: person shows written response to the user
Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not contain any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: NO). The only additional element are “a processor-implemented method” (claim 1), “one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method comprising” (claim 8), and “A computer program product, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium, the program instructions executable by a processor capable of performing a method, the method comprising” (claim 15), which are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not contain any additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed above, the only additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, “The processor-implemented method”, “The computer system”, and “The computer program product” are recited, with the method and system directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine) (Step 1: YES). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes which fall into the category of abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1: YES).
The following limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes:
Claims 2, 9, and 16:
determining an explainability of the piece of content based on the complexity level of the piece of content: a person decides an explainability of the content based on its complexity (e.g. decides a scientific journal article has a low explainability)
Claims 2, 9, and 16 contain no additional elements.
Claims 3, 10, and 17:
wherein the content comprises a message in a chat service: a person reads chat messages in particular for determining explainability
Claims 3, 10, and 17 contain no additional limitations.
Claims 4, 11, and 18:
wherein identifying the complexity level is performed …: a person can read content and determine how complex it is (e.g. determine a science article has high complexity)
Claims 4, 11, and 18 contain the additional limitation of “using natural language processing”, which amounts to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer.
Claims 5, 12, and 19:
wherein the target skill level and the complexity level each correspond to a particular subject: a person interprets target skill level and complexity level relating to a particular subject (e.g., science, history, politics)
Claims 5, 12, and 19 contain no additional limitations.
Claims 6, 13, and 20:
wherein generating an explanation includes selecting an explanation from a preexisting…of explanations: a person creates a response by using prewritten explanations
Claims 6, 13, and 20 contain the additional limitation “from a preexisting repository”, which amounts to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer.
Claims 7 and 14:
wherein generating an explanation…: a person can write down an explanation relating to the content item
Claims 7 and 14 contain the additional limitation “includes natural language processing”, which amounts to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not contain any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: NO). As discussed above, the only additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer, which even when viewed in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are directed to abstract ideas.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not contain any additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed above, the only additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer, which even when viewed in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are not patent eligible.
3. Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it recites “one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium”. The applicant’s specification does not provide a special definition for a “one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium”; thus, using its plain meaning, the term includes data signals per se as one potential form of the media. Data signals per se do not fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention. As such, they are non-statutory subject matter. In contrast, a claimed “one or more computer-readable storage medium” excludes data signals from its scope, as a special definition is given for a “computer readable storage medium” in para. 0023 of Applicant’s specification to not be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, and thus does fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Van Hickman (US 2023/0169268 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Van Hickman discloses A processor-implemented method (para. 0128), the method comprising: identifying one or more skill levels for one or more users (para. 0047 “The MSV score 258 may be associated with the user via a user profile stored in the reading database 260 or elsewhere. The MSV score is a type of proficiency score.”; para. 0112 “A desired reading level 1215 for the output text 1212 is received. The desired reading level 1215 may be based on a reading level determined for a reader. In one aspect, the reading level for a reader may be the MSV score 258.”); identifying a complexity level corresponding to a piece of content (para. 0110 “The input text 1210 may be a book, news article, blog post, short story, or any other textual content.”; para. 0111 “An initial reading level of the textual content may be determined by the reading level component 1207.”); determining an explanation level for the piece of content based on the complexity level of the piece of content and a target skill level from the one or more skill levels (initial and desired reading levels used to determine a complexity level: para. 0028 “The initial reading level and desired reading level can also be inputs to determining the complexity of the synonyms eventually selected…”; para. 0030 “In aspects, the complexity level may be retrieved from a data record with complexity levels assigned various words. The complexity level is used to select words to substitute with words in the input text. Initially, a heuristic may be used to select the complexity of candidate words and an amount of candidate words to substitute. The heuristic may map various candidate words to a reading level adjustment that will occur with each word, given an initial reading level of the text. The heuristic may also exclude candidate words with above a threshold complexity for use with certain desired reading levels. This prevents inappropriately complex words from being used as substitute words ”, see also para. 0117); generating an explanation for the piece of content according to the explanation level (para. 0118 “Once the candidate words are selected based on the assigned complexity level, a candidate replacement text is generated by substituting one or more target words in the textual content with one or more candidate replacement words. Not all target words originally identified need to be replaced.”); and providing the explanation to a target user (para. 0119 “As an additional quality check, an updated reading level for the candidate replacement text may be determined by the reading-level component 1207. If the updated reading level is within a threshold of the desired reading level, then the candidate replacement text may be output to the user. If outside the threshold, then the candidate replacement text may be adjusted by undoing a replacement, making a new replacement, or updating a replacement with more complex or less complex candidate word.”).
Regarding claim 2, Van Hickman discloses wherein determining an explanation level further comprises: determining an explainability of the piece of content based on the complexity level of the piece of content (explainability of content (determining level of complexity of replacement words for the content) is determined based on complexity level of the content (initial reading level): para. 0030 “The heuristic map various candidate words toa reading level adjustment that will occur with each word, given an initial reading level of the text…”; see also para. 0117).
Regarding claim 6, Van Hickman discloses wherein generating an explanation includes selecting an explanation from a preexisting repository of explanations (generating an explanation with candidate replacement words which are preexisting words synonymous with words in the input text: para. 0115 “The candidate selector 1203 takes the list of target words from the speech component 1202 and identifies synonyms. The synonyms may be selected from multiple sources, such as BERT, Wordnet lexical base, Merriam Webster thesaurus, and like…”).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is a computer system claim with limitations similar to those in claim 1, and is thus rejected under similar rationale.
Additionally, Van Hickman discloses A computer system (Fig. 16), the computer system comprising: one or more processors (Fig. 16, 1614), one or more computer-readable memories (Fig. 16, 1612, para. 0150 “Memory 1612 includes computer storage media in the form of volatile and/or nonvolatile memory.”), one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium (Fig. 16, 1612, para. 0148 “Computer storage media includes RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical disk storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices. Computer storage media does not comprise a propagated data signal.”), and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method comprising (para. 0034 “For instance, some functions may be carried out by a processor executing instructions stored in memory.”; para. 0128 “For instance, various functions may be carried out by a processor executing instructions stored in memory. The methods may also be embodied as computer-usable instructions stored on computer storage media.”).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is a computer program product claim with limitations similar to those recited in claim 1, and is thus rejected under similar rationale.
Additionally, Van Hickman discloses A computer program product, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium, the program instructions executable by a processor capable of performing a method, the method comprising (Fig. 16, 1612, para. 0148 “Computer storage media includes RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical disk storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices. Computer storage media does not comprise a propagated data signal.”; para. 0128 “For instance, various functions may be carried out by a processor executing instructions stored in memory. The methods may also be embodied as computer-usable instructions stored on computer storage media.”).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 6.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Hickman in view of Shevchenko et al. (US 10,594,757 B1, hereinafter Shevchenko).
Regarding claim 3, Van Hickman does not specifically disclose wherein the content comprises a message in a chat service.
Shevchenko teaches wherein the content comprises a message in a chat service (AIA assists users with readability and vocabulary mismatch for chat messaging: Col. 56 Lines 63-67 and Col. 57 Lines 1-5 “In embodiments, the AIA may be used to improve clarity and effectiveness, such as through context and communication profiles. For instance, an alert of readability or vocabulary mismatch may be provided to a user based on the target audience (e.g., too many idioms in a text for non-native speakers or inclusion of complex language in a text for children), a suggestion for an improvement to or automatic rewrite of the text may be provided to adjust readability and vocabulary, a rewrite of an email may be provided to maximize a positive outcome, and the like.”; Col. 47 Lines 57-67 and Col. 48 Line 1“FIG. 2 illustrates an AIA communication system model, where a user generates a communication as an input to the MA, such as a written electronic text (e.g., email, text message, document, and the like), voice communication (e.g., voice input to a telecommunications system), and the like…generates an output in the form of a modified communication or feedback to the user that is directed at optimizing the effectiveness, clarity, and correctness of the communication…”).
Van Hickman and Shevchenko are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they both are in the same field of natural language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van Hickman to incorporate the teachings of Shevchenko in order to specifically have the content comprise a message in a chat service. Doing so would be beneficial, as this would allow for more clear and effective communication for chat communications between a user and a target audience (Col. 56 Lines 63-67 and Col. 57 Lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 3.
6. Claims 4, 7, 11, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Hickman in view of Miltsakaki (US 2019/0114300 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Van Hickman does not specifically disclose wherein identifying the complexity level is performed using natural language processing.
Miltsakaki teaches wherein identifying the complexity level is performed using natural language processing (para. 0045 “In some embodiments, machine learning (e.g., the reading level estimation engine 112 and/or the text simplification engine 116) accesses data relating to particular words (e.g., their frequency of use at particular reading levels R1-R4) and their corresponding reading level R1-R4 in the database 114.”; para. 0049 “The reading level estimation engine 112 thus can use the database 114 to help classify the reading level R1-R4 of newly inputted texts 12 based on the content of the text 12. As a simplified example, if the input text 12 contains a high prevalence of the words “victory” and “legal,” and a low prevalence of the words “legislative” and “conquest,” the reading level estimation engine 112 may determine that the text 12 has a high probability of being in the R2 reading level. Accordingly, the system 20 could assign the R2 reading level to the inputted text 12. At this point, the reading level estimation engine 112 has generated an estimated reading level for the input text 12.”).
Van Hickman and Miltsakaki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they both are in the same field of natural language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van Hickman to incorporate the teachings of Miltsakaki in order to specifically identify the complexity level using natural language processing. Doing so would be beneficial, as this would allow a model to access a large corpus of data and learn to accurately classify complexity levels (para. 0051).
Regarding claim 7, Van Hickman does not specifically disclose wherein generating an explanation includes natural language generation.
Miltsakaki teaches wherein generating an explanation includes natural language generation (para. 0045 “In some embodiments, machine learning (e.g., the reading level estimation engine 112 and/or the text simplification engine 116) accesses data relating to particular words (e.g., their frequency of use at particular reading levels R1-R4) and their corresponding reading level R1-R4 in the database 114.”; para. 0054 “At step 510, the text simplification engine 116 makes a decision as to whether the input text 12 needs to be simplified. For example, if the reading level 14 of the input text 12 is at a lower reading level than the selected target level 18, no text simplification takes place. One or more considerations can be taken into account such as the number of words, grammatical structure, the topic of discussion, etc. In a preferred embodiment, the text simplification engine 116 includes a Deep Neural Network. If the text 12 does not need to be simplified, the control passes to final stage 590. If the text 12 needs to be simplified, however, control passes to steps 520 and 530…”; para. 0064 “At step 590, the simplified sentence is produced and is presented to the user 10.”).
Van Hickman and Miltsakaki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they both are in the same field of natural language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van Hickman to incorporate the teachings of Miltsakaki in order to specifically generate the explanation using natural language processing. Doing so would be beneficial, as this would allow a model to be configured which uses feedback to improve the quality of future simplified texts (para. 0006).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 4.
7. Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Hickman in view of Dodelson et al. (US 2014/0193796 A1, hereinafter Dodelson).
Regarding claim 5, Van Hickman does not specifically disclose wherein the target skill level and the complexity level each correspond to a particular subject.
Dodelson teaches wherein the target skill level and the complexity level each correspond to a particular subject (target skill level (skill level of a particular user) and complexity level (complexity of a particular content) each correspond to a particular subject: para. 0050 “Upon receiving the entered information, at step 206, the system 100 develops a student profile associated with each user…At step 208, the system 100 assess the skill level of the user(s) in one or more subjects. To perform this step, the system 100 may, for example, deliver a set of question to the user(s) in different subject matters, such as literacy, reading comprehension, vocabulary, and mathematics, and assess a skill level in each subject area based on a predetermined skill-level scale…”; para. 0052 “The system 100 obtains the unmodified content from sources. The unmodified content includes, but is not limited to, textbook excerpts, periodical articles, news articles, literary excerpts, and the like. The unmodified content may come from any source, such as, for example, academic textbook, news sources, library databases, pre-developed lesson databases, and the like.”; para. 0055 “At step 216, the system 100 matches a specific version of the aligned content to a user using the user's pre-assessed skill level(s). The system 100 may modify further the matched aligned content version to increase comprehension of the aligned content version by the specific user. The 100 system matches a version of the aligned content to a user by matching specific areas of learning where the user exhibits a need for improvement, as assessed by the system 100 in step 208.”).
Van Hickman and Dodelson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they both are in the same field of natural language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van Hickman to incorporate the teachings of Dodelson in order to specifically have the target skill level and the complexity level each correspond to a particular subject. Doing so would be beneficial, as this would enable aligned content to a user to increase comprehension in a particular subject (para. 0055, para. 0057).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Patel et al. (US 2024/0169364 A1): adapting digital platform comprising simplifying text (para. 0086)
Chen et al. (US 11,144,722 B2): generating replacements for phases in content item unlikely to be understood based on user profile (Fig. 4)
Rajani & McCann (US 2020/0285704 A1): generating commonsense explanations (Fig. 1)
Alam et al. (US 2020/0134039 A1): modifying portions of content based on classification of sections and based on baseline of user, including education history of user (Fig. 1)
Ruano et al. (US 2010/0010802 A1): analyze words/jargon in user input to adjust skill level of a user (Fig. 4A)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY DOUGLAS HUTCHESON whose telephone number is (703)756-1601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-5:00PM 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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at (571)-272-7799. 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.
/CODY DOUGLAS HUTCHESON/Examiner, Art Unit 2659
/PIERRE LOUIS DESIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2659