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
The instant application having Application No. 18/406,838 has claims 1-7, 9-16 and 18-20 are pending filed on 01/08/2024; there are 3 independent claims and 15 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on February 17, 2026 in response to PTO Office Action dated November 19, 2025. The Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims and/or specification were considered with the results that follow.
Claim Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
35 USC § 103 Rejection of claims 1-7, 9-16 and 18-20
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/17/2026 with respect to the claims 1-7, 9-16 and 18-20 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection “.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: component in claims 10-16 and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-7, 9-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myslinski Lucas (US PGPUB 20150293897 here in after known as Myslinski_1) in view of Myslinski Lucas (US PGPUB 20140316769 here in after known as Myslinski_2) and in further view of Tyler et al (US PGPUB 20260135883 here in after known as Tyler).
As per claim 1:
Myslinski_1 teaches:
“A method of fact-checking content in a web browser, comprising” (Paragraph [0021] (a method of automatically coding a web page with fact check results comprising))
“presenting a web page comprising a plurality of information elements to a user” (Paragraph [0064] (the web is able to be displayed for viewers (users) to see who says the same information or agrees with a person))
“identifying at least one content element in the web page that is potentially misinformation” (Paragraph [0045] and Paragraph [0060] (after a web page, tweet, and/or any other content is fact checked, the fact check result and any identifying information is stored and used as source information, or stored in a manner that is easily retrievable for future displays of results and misinformation is determined automatically by determining the factual accuracy of the information))
“comparing the at least one content element against a database comprising verified information elements” (Paragraph [0033] and Paragraph [0034] (the information is fact checked where the fact checking includes comparing the information to source information to determine the factual validity where exact match, pattern matching, natural language, intelligence, context, and/or any combination thereof is used for the comparison (at least one content element) and the source information includes web pages on the one or more databases))
“determining, while the web page and the plurality of information elements are displayed to the user, whether a verified information element in the database corresponds to the at least one content element” (Paragraph [0034], Paragraph [0038] and Paragraph [0047] (the user selects an automated approval/disapproval system (while the web page and the plurality of information elements are displayed to the user) which searches/crawls sources like databases or the Web), analyzes) the sources, fact checks the sources, based on the analysis and/or fact check results, approves/disapproves of the sources for the user, an implementation of fact checking includes searching through the results of the search, comparing the results with the information to be checked using one or more of the comparisons and the fact checking is implemented such that responses and validity determinations are available in real-time))
“and if a verified information element in the database is found to correspond to the at least one content element” (Paragraph [0034] (comparing the information with the source and finding a matching result where the results are able to be any type including, but not limited to, binary, Boolean (True/False), text, numerical, and/or any other format)).
Myslinski_1 does not EXPLICITLY teaches: automatically, via a browser extension executing on a user device, transmitting the at least one content element to a remote fact-checking server system; wherein the database is maintained by periodically scraping trusted external information sources; receiving, from the remote fact-checking server system, verification results associated with the at least one content element; overlaying, via a browser extension executing on the user’s device and in communication with a remote server system, the received verification results including; the verified information element directly on the displayed web page in real-time in association with the at least one content element; wherein the overlay comprises additional text, a web link, a pop- up, or a graphic; and wherein the identification and comparison comprise semantic text analysis and image or photograph recognition of the plurality of information elements.
However, in an analogous art, Myslinski_2 teaches:
“overlaying, via a browser extension executing on the user’s device and in communication with a remote server system, the received verification results including” (Paragraph [0155] and Paragraph [0313] (the data verification or fact checking occurs on a remote server, the results are sent to users' local machines, a fact checking GUI utilizes overlays, underlays, pop-ups, pop-unders, menus, frames, and/or any other component, a popup or a web page accompanying a website is used to display the fact checking and/or supplemental information for a website where a pop-up from a browser plug-in (browser extension) shows the factually inaccurate and/or supplemental information of the Website))
“the verified information element directly on the displayed web page in real-time in association with the at least one content element” (Paragraph [0309] (the results information is sent from the cloud to the user device for each searchable portion, and the results information is displayed on the user device in real-time))
“wherein the overlay comprises additional text, a web link, a pop- up, or a graphic” (Paragraph [0313] (a fact checking GUI utilizes overlays, underlays, pop-ups, pop-unders, menus, frames, and/or any other component, the highlighting is performed by overlaying highlighting on the web page without actually changing the web page and the information is selectable using a web page link to see the evidence of the bias and/or misinformation))
“and wherein the identification and comparison comprise semantic text analysis and image or photograph recognition of the plurality of information elements” (Paragraph [0104] and Paragraph [0131] (searching through the results of the search, comparing the results with the information to be checked using one or more of the comparisons including straight text, context or intelligent, people/face recognition, the face recognition identifies the person and once recognized, information about the person is displayed including, but not limited to, the validity rating, statistics, and/or other information)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Myslinski_2 and apply them on teachings of Myslinski_1 for the method “overlaying, via a browser extension executing on the user’s device and in communication with a remote server system, the received verification results including; the verified information element directly on the displayed web page in real-time in association with the at least one content element; wherein the overlay comprises additional text, a web link, a pop- up, or a graphic; and wherein the identification and comparison comprise semantic text analysis and image or photograph recognition of the plurality of information elements”. One would be motivated as a fact checking GUI utilizes overlays, underlays, pop-ups, pop-unders, menus, frames, and/or other components like the fact checking information or a result is overlaid on a screen, pop-ups are able to provide cites, opposing arguments, rebuttal information, advertisements, and/or any other information and a background of the GUI is able to be changed as fact checking occurs i.e. background changes from green to red as more inaccuracies are determined (Myslinski_2, Paragraph [0313]).
Myslinski_1 and Myslinski_2 do not EXPLICITLY teach: automatically, via a browser extension executing on a user device, transmitting the at least one content element to a remote fact-checking server system; wherein the database is maintained by periodically scraping trusted external information sources; receiving, from the remote fact-checking server system, verification results associated with the at least one content element.
However, in an analogous art, Tyler teaches:
“overlaying, via a browser extension executing on the user’s device and in communication with a remote server system, the received verification results including” (Paragraph [0165] (It should be noted that the threat detection and warning system may be provided on a server remote from the computing device, the processor may be associated with at least one of an operating system of the computing device, a browser plugin (browser extension) for use with a browser running on the computing device, a cloud-based service to which the computing device communicates and exchange data with the user over one or more networks))
“wherein the database is maintained by periodically scraping trusted external information sources” (Paragraph [0184] (the threat detection and warning system may be configured to querying (scraping) one or more of the databases storing data associated with trusted content in which such trusted content has been deemed legitimate and safe for user interaction))
“receiving, from the remote fact-checking server system, verification results associated with the at least one content element” (Paragraph [0176] (upon analyzing the content to determine whether interaction with the content poses a security threat, the threat detection and warning system is configured to output security-related information to the user where the outputting may include transmitting a signal to the computing device or to a secondary computing device associated with the user)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Tyler and apply them on teachings of Myslinski_1 and Myslinski_2 for the method “automatically, via a browser extension executing on a user device, transmitting the at least one content element to a remote fact-checking server system; wherein the database is maintained by periodically scraping trusted external information sources; receiving, from the remote fact-checking server system, verification results associated with the at least one content element”. One would be motivated as the system includes a browser plugin in the browser that communicates with a data store where the data store can be stored remotely in a database and the data store includes a trusted site column with the identifiers of trusted sites, called “trusted site identifiers” (Tyler, Paragraph [0145]).
As per claim 2:
Myslinski_1, Myslinski_2 and Tyler teach the method of fact-checking content in a web browser of claim 1 above.
Myslinski_1 further teaches:
“wherein at least one of: identifying at least one content element, comparing the at least one content element against a database of verified information” (Paragraph [0033] (the information is fact checked where the fact checking includes comparing the information to source information to determine the factual validity and the source information includes web pages on the one or more databases))
“determining whether a verified information element in the database corresponds to the at least one content element” (Paragraph [0034] and Paragraph [0038] (an implementation of fact checking includes searching through the results of the search, comparing the results with the information to be checked using one or more of the comparisons and the fact checking is implemented such that responses and validity determinations are available in real-time)).
Also, Myslinski_2 further teaches
“and displaying the verified information element, is performed via a browser extension or plugin” (Paragraph [0313] (a popup or a web page accompanying a website is used to display the fact checking and/or supplemental information for a website where a pop-up from a browser plug-in (browser extension) shows the factually inaccurate and/or supplemental information of the Website)).
As per claim 3:
Myslinski_1, Myslinski_2 and Tyler teach the method of fact-checking content in a web browser of claim 1 above.
Myslinski_1 further teaches:
“wherein at least one of: comparing the at least one content element against a database of verified information” (Paragraph [0033] (the information is fact checked where the fact checking includes comparing the information to source information to determine the factual validity and the source information includes web pages on the one or more databases))
“and determining whether a verified information element in the database corresponds to the at least one content element” (Paragraph [0034] and Paragraph [0038] (an implementation of fact checking includes searching through the results of the search, comparing the results with the information to be checked using one or more of the comparisons and the fact checking is implemented such that responses and validity determinations are available in real-time))
“is performed in a remote server” (Paragraph [0044] (a source database containing source information including, but not limited to, a searchable database is coupled through a network like the Internet (remote server))).
As per claim 4:
Myslinski_1, Myslinski_2 and Tyler teach the method of fact-checking content in a web browser of claim 1 above.
Myslinski_1 further teaches:
“wherein identifying at least one content element in a web page that is potentially misinformation comprises” (Paragraph [0033] ( the information is fact checked which includes comparing the information to source information to determine the factual validity, accuracy, quality, character and/or type of the information))
“recognizing at least one of semantics and words in text” (Paragraph [0034] (the comparison includes a text comparison such as a straight word for word text comparison)).
As per claim 5:
Myslinski_1, Myslinski_2 and Tyler teach the method of fact-checking content in a web browser of claim 4 above.
Myslinski_1 further teaches:
“wherein identifying at least one content element in a web page that is potentially misinformation via recognizing at least one of” (Paragraph [0033] ( the information is fact checked which includes comparing the information to source information to determine the factual validity, accuracy, quality, character and/or type of the information))
“semantics and words in text comprises evaluation of one or more of sentences and paragraphs in the text” (Paragraph [0107] (the web page is analyzed/modified character by character, word by word, phrase by phrase, sentence by sentence, line by line and section by section (sentences and paragraphs in the text))).
As per claim 6:
Myslinski_1, Myslinski_2 and Tyler teach the method of fact-checking content in a web browser of claim 1 above.
Myslinski_1 further teaches:
“wherein identifying at least one content element in a web page that is potentially misinformation comprises” (Paragraph [0033] ( the information is fact checked which includes comparing the information to source information to determine the factual validity, accuracy, quality, character and/or type of the information))
“recognizing at least one image or photograph that may be fabricated or altered” (Paragraph [0075] (an icon or image changes from a happy face to a sad face as misinformation is given by an entity))).
As per claim 7:
Myslinski_1, Myslinski_2 and Tyler teach the method of fact-checking content in a web browser of claim 1 above.
Myslinski_1 further teaches:
“wherein displaying the verified information element in the database in association with the at least one content element via the web browser comprises” (Paragraph [0033] and Paragraph [0064] (the information is fact checked which includes comparing the information to source information to determine the factual validity where the source information includes web pages on the Internet, one or more databases, and the web is shown when the misinformation is detected)).
Also, Myslinski_2 further teaches:
“displaying a verified fact associated with verified information element in the database” (Paragraph [0313] (the fact checking information and/or supplemental information (verified fact associated with verified information) is an overlay projected by a display or GUI device)).
As per claim 9:
Myslinski_1, Myslinski_2 and Tyler teach the method of fact-checking content in a web browser of claim 1 above.
Myslinski_1 further teaches:
“wherein the database of verified information comprises a plurality of external sources of verified information” (Paragraph [0033] (the information is fact checked by comparing the information to source information to determine the factual validity, accuracy, quality, character and/or type of the information and the source information includes web pages on the Internet, one or more databases, dictionaries, encyclopedias, social network information, video, audio, any other communication, any other data, one or more data stores and/or any other source (external sources of verified information))).
As per claim 10:
Myslinski_1 teaches:
“a computing device, comprising” (Paragraph [0041] (a hardware structure suitable for implementing the computing device includes))
“a processor and a non-volatile storage” (Paragraph [0041] (a processor and a storage device where storage device can be a hard drive, CDROM, CDRW, DVD, DVDRW, flash memory card, solid state drive or any other storage device))
“the non-volatile storage comprising instructions that when executed on the computing device cause the computing device to” (Paragraph [0041] (the fact checking application(s) used to perform the monitoring, processing, fact checking and providing are likely to be stored in the storage device and memory and processed by the computing device as applications))
“execute a web browser” (Paragraph [0118] (a web browser includes a fact check tag button which copies the web page address))
“and present a web page comprising a plurality of information elements to a user” (Paragraph [0064] (the web is able to be displayed for viewers (users) to see who says the same information or agrees with a person))
“identify at least one content element in the web page that is potentially misinformation” (Paragraph [0045] and Paragraph [0060] (after a web page, tweet, and/or any other content is fact checked, the fact check result and any identifying information is stored and used as source information, or stored in a manner that is easily retrievable for future displays of results and misinformation is determined automatically by determining the factual accuracy of the information))
“compare the at least one content element against a database comprising verified information elements” (Paragraph [0033] and Paragraph [0034] (the information is fact checked where the fact checking includes comparing the information to source information to determine the factual validity where exact match, pattern matching, natural language, intelligence, context, and/or any combination thereof is used for the comparison (at least one content element) and the source information includes web pages on the one or more databases))
“determine, while the web page and the plurality of information elements are displayed, whether a verified information element in the database corresponds to the at least one content element” (Paragraph [0034], Paragraph [0038] and Paragraph [0047] (the user selects an automated approval/disapproval system (while the web page and the plurality of information elements are displayed to the user) which searches/crawls sources like databases or the Web), analyzes) the sources, fact checks the sources, based on the analysis and/or fact check results, approves/disapproves of the sources for the user, an implementation of fact checking includes searching through the results of the search, comparing the results with the information to be checked using one or more of the comparisons and the fact checking is implemented such that responses and validity determinations are available in real-time))
“and if a verified information element in the database is found to correspond to the at least one content element” (Paragraph [0034] (comparing the information with the source and finding a matching result where the results are able to be any type including, but not limited to, binary, Boolean (True/False), text, numerical, and/or any other format)).
Myslinski_1 does not EXPLICITLY teaches: automatically transmit, via a browser extension executing on a computing device, the at least one content element to a remote fact-checking server system; wherein the database is maintained by periodically scraping trusted external information sources; receive, from the remote fact-checking server system, verification results associated with the at least one content element; cause the web browser, through a browser extension executing on the computing device and in communication with a remote server system; to overlay in real-time the received verification results including the verified information element directly within the displayed web page in association with the at least one content element; wherein the overlay comprises additional text, a web link, a pop- up, or a graphic; and wherein the processor executes instructions to perform semantic analysis of text and recognition of images in the displayed web page; and to communicate with the remote server to verify the elements against multiple external trusted sources in real-time.
However, in an analogous art, Myslinski_2 teaches:
“cause the web browser, through a browser extension executing on the computing device and in communication with a remote server system” (Paragraph [0155] and Paragraph [0313] (a fact checking GUI utilizes overlays, underlays, pop-ups, pop-unders, menus, frames, and/or any other component, a popup or a web page accompanying a website is used to display the fact checking and/or supplemental information for a website where a pop-up from a browser plug-in (browser extension) shows the factually inaccurate and/or supplemental information of the Website and the data verification or fact checking occurs on a remote server))
“to overlay in real-time the received verification results including the verified information element directly within the displayed web page in association with the at least one content element” (Paragraph [0309] (the results information is sent from the cloud to the user device for each searchable portion, and the results information is displayed on the user device in real-time))
“wherein the overlay comprises additional text, a web link, a pop- up, or a graphic” (Paragraph [0313] (a fact checking GUI utilizes overlays, underlays, pop-ups, pop-unders, menus, frames, and/or any other component, the highlighting is performed by overlaying highlighting on the web page without actually changing the web page and the information is selectable using a web page link to see the evidence of the bias and/or misinformation))
“and wherein the processor executes instructions to perform semantic analysis of text and recognition of images in the displayed web page” (Paragraph [0104] and Paragraph [0131] (searching through the results of the search, comparing the results with the information to be checked using one or more of the comparisons including straight text, context or intelligent, people/face recognition, the face recognition identifies the person and once recognized, information about the person is displayed including, but not limited to, the validity rating, statistics, and/or other information))
“and to communicate with the remote server to verify the elements against multiple external trusted sources in real-time” (Paragraph [306] and Paragraph [0307] (monitored information is sent from a device to cloud computing device(s) (remote servers) which then perform fact checking by comparing the information with source information, and the identification information is implemented such that the cloud computing fact checking still provides real-time fact checking results displayed on a user's device in real-time))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Myslinski_2 and apply them on teachings of Myslinski_1 for the computing device “cause the web browser, through a browser extension executing on the computing device and in communication with a remote server system; to overlay in real-time the received verification results including the verified information element directly within the displayed web page in association with the at least one content element; wherein the overlay comprises additional text, a web link, a pop- up, or a graphic; and wherein the processor executes instructions to perform semantic analysis of text and recognition of images in the displayed web page; and to communicate with the remote server to verify the elements against multiple external trusted sources in real-time”. One would be motivated as a fact checking GUI utilizes overlays, underlays, pop-ups, pop-unders, menus, frames, and/or other components like the fact checking information or a result is overlaid on a screen, pop-ups are able to provide cites, opposing arguments, rebuttal information, advertisements, and/or any other information and a background of the GUI is able to be changed as fact checking occurs i.e. background changes from green to red as more inaccuracies are determined (Myslinski_2, Paragraph [0313]).
Myslinski_1 and Myslinski_2 do not EXPLICITLY teach: automatically transmit, via a browser extension executing on a computing device, the at least one content element to a remote fact-checking server system; wherein the database is maintained by periodically scraping trusted external information sources; receive, from the remote fact-checking server system, verification results associated with the at least one content element.
However, in an analogous art, Tyler teaches:
“automatically transmit, via a browser extension executing on a computing device, the at least one content element to a remote fact-checking server system” (Paragraph [0165] (It should be noted that the threat detection and warning system may be provided on a server remote from the computing device, the processor may be associated with at least one of an operating system of the computing device, a browser plugin (browser extension) for use with a browser running on the computing device, a cloud-based service to which the computing device communicates and exchange data with the user over one or more networks))
“wherein the database is maintained by periodically scraping trusted external information sources” (Paragraph [0184] (the threat detection and warning system may be configured to querying (scraping) one or more of the databases storing data associated with trusted content in which such trusted content has been deemed legitimate and safe for user interaction))
“receive, from the remote fact-checking server system, verification results associated with the at least one content element” (Paragraph [0176] (upon analyzing the content to determine whether interaction with the content poses a security threat, the threat detection and warning system is configured to output security-related information to the user where the outputting may include transmitting a signal to the computing device or to a secondary computing device associated with the user)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Tyler and apply them on teachings of Myslinski_1 and Myslinski_2 for the computing device “automatically transmit, via a browser extension executing on a computing device, the at least one content element to a remote fact-checking server system; wherein the database is maintained by periodically scraping trusted external information sources; receive, from the remote fact-checking server system, verification results associated with the at least one content element”. One would be motivated as the system includes a browser plugin in the browser that communicates with a data store where the data store can be stored remotely in a database and the data store includes a trusted site column with the identifiers of trusted sites, called “trusted site identifiers” (Tyler, Paragraph [0145]).
As per claim 11, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 10 and the claim 2 above.
As per claim 12, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 10 and the claim 3 above.
As per claim 13, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 10 and the claim 4 above.
As per claim 14, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 13 and the claim 5 above.
As per claim 15, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 10 and the claim 6 above.
As per claim 16, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 10 and the claim 7 above.
As per claim 18, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 10 and the claim 9 above.
As per claim 19:
Myslinski_1 teaches:
“A method of fact-checking content via a web browser, comprising” (Paragraph [0021] (a method of automatically coding a web page with fact check results comprising))
“presenting a web page comprising a plurality of information elements to a user” (Paragraph [0064] (the web is able to be displayed for viewers (users) to see who says the same information or agrees with a person))
“receiving from the web browser at least one content element in the web page that is potentially misinformation” (Paragraph [0045], Paragraph [0047] and Paragraph [0060] (receiving a web link or web site or content from a contact, after a web page, tweet, and/or any other content is fact checked, the fact check result and any identifying information is stored and used as source information, or stored in a manner that is easily retrievable for future displays of results and misinformation is determined automatically by determining the factual accuracy of the information))
“comparing the at least one content element against a database of verified information” (Paragraph [0033] and Paragraph [0034] (the information is fact checked where the fact checking includes comparing the information to source information to determine the factual validity where exact match, pattern matching, natural language, intelligence, context, and/or any combination thereof is used for the comparison (at least one content element) and the source information includes web pages on the one or more databases))
“determining, while the web page and the plurality of information elements are displayed to the user, whether a verified information element in the database corresponds to the at least one content element” (Paragraph [0034], Paragraph [0038] and Paragraph [0047] (the user selects an automated approval/disapproval system (while the web page and the plurality of information elements are displayed to the user) which searches/crawls sources like databases or the Web), analyzes) the sources, fact checks the sources, based on the analysis and/or fact check results, approves/disapproves of the sources for the user, an implementation of fact checking includes searching through the results of the search, comparing the results with the information to be checked using one or more of the comparisons and the fact checking is implemented such that responses and validity determinations are available in real-time))
“and if a verified information element in the database is found to correspond to the at least one content element” (Paragraph [0034] (comparing the information with the source and finding a matching result where the results are able to be any type including, but not limited to, binary, Boolean (True/False), text, numerical, and/or any other format)).
Myslinski_1 does not EXPLICITLY teaches: automatically transmitting, via a browser extension executing on a computing device, the at least one content element to a remote fact-checking server system; wherein the database is maintained by periodically scraping trusted external information sources; receiving, from the remote fact-checking server system, verification results associated with the at least one content element; providing to a browser for a real-time overlay in the displayed web page; the received verification results including the verified information element in association with the at least one content element; wherein the verified information element is displayed as additional text, a web link, a pop-up, or a graphic; and wherein comprises semantic text analysis and image or photograph recognition performed via communication with a remote server that updates the database by scraping external trusted sources.
However, in an analogous art, Myslinski_2 teaches:
“providing to a browser for a real-time overlay in the displayed web page” (Paragraph [0155] and Paragraph [0313] (a fact checking GUI utilizes overlays, underlays, pop-ups, pop-unders, menus, frames, and/or any other component, a popup or a web page accompanying a website is used to display the fact checking and/or supplemental information for a website where a pop-up from a browser plug-in (browser extension) shows the factually inaccurate and/or supplemental information of the Website and the data verification or fact checking occurs on a remote server))
“the received verification results including the verified information element in association with the at least one content element” (Paragraph [0309] (the results information is sent from the cloud to the user device for each searchable portion, and the results information is displayed on the user device in real-time))
“wherein the verified information element is displayed as additional text, a web link, a pop-up, or a graphic” (Paragraph [0313] (a fact checking GUI utilizes overlays, underlays, pop-ups, pop-unders, menus, frames, and/or any other component, the highlighting is performed by overlaying highlighting on the web page without actually changing the web page and the information is selectable using a web page link to see the evidence of the bias and/or misinformation))
“and wherein comprises semantic text analysis and image or photograph recognition performed via communication with a remote server that updates the database by scraping external trusted sources” (Paragraph [0104], Paragraph [0131] and Paragraph [0135] (searching through the results of the search, comparing the results with the information to be checked using one or more of the comparisons including straight text, context or intelligent, people/face recognition, the face recognition identifies the person and once recognized, information about the person is displayed and new sources are able to be found using a crawler, data miner, bot, and/or other implementation (scraping external trusted sources) is able to search for and utilize additional sources of information for fact checking)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Myslinski_2 and apply them on teachings of Myslinski_1 for the method “providing to a browser for a real-time overlay in the displayed web page; the received verification results including the verified information element in association with the at least one content element; wherein the verified information element is displayed as additional text, a web link, a pop-up, or a graphic; and wherein comprises semantic text analysis and image or photograph recognition performed via communication with a remote server that updates the database by scraping external trusted sources”. One would be motivated as a fact checking GUI utilizes overlays, underlays, pop-ups, pop-unders, menus, frames, and/or other components like the fact checking information or a result is overlaid on a screen, pop-ups are able to provide cites, opposing arguments, rebuttal information, advertisements, and/or any other information and a background of the GUI is able to be changed as fact checking occurs i.e. background changes from green to red as more inaccuracies are determined (Myslinski_2, Paragraph [0313]).
Myslinski_1 and Myslinski_2 do not EXPLICITLY teach: automatically transmitting, via a browser extension executing on a computing device, the at least one content element to a remote fact-checking server system; wherein the database is maintained by periodically scraping trusted external information sources; receiving, from the remote fact-checking server system, verification results associated with the at least one content element.
However, in an analogous art, Tyler teaches:
“automatically transmitting, via a browser extension executing on a computing device, the at least one content element to a remote fact-checking server system” (Paragraph [0165] (It should be noted that the threat detection and warning system may be provided on a server remote from the computing device, the processor may be associated with at least one of an operating system of the computing device, a browser plugin (browser extension) for use with a browser running on the computing device, a cloud-based service to which the computing device communicates and exchange data with the user over one or more networks))
“wherein the database is maintained by periodically scraping trusted external information sources” (Paragraph [0184] (the threat detection and warning system may be configured to querying (scraping) one or more of the databases storing data associated with trusted content in which such trusted content has been deemed legitimate and safe for user interaction))
“receiving, from the remote fact-checking server system, verification results associated with the at least one content element” (Paragraph [0176] (upon analyzing the content to determine whether interaction with the content poses a security threat, the threat detection and warning system is configured to output security-related information to the user where the outputting may include transmitting a signal to the computing device or to a secondary computing device associated with the user)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Tyler and apply them on teachings of Myslinski_1 and Myslinski_2 for the method “automatically transmitting, via a browser extension executing on a computing device, the at least one content element to a remote fact-checking server system; wherein the database is maintained by periodically scraping trusted external information sources; receiving, from the remote fact-checking server system, verification results associated with the at least one content element”. One would be motivated as the system includes a browser plugin in the browser that communicates with a data store where the data store can be stored remotely in a database and the data store includes a trusted site column with the identifiers of trusted sites, called “trusted site identifiers” (Tyler, Paragraph [0145]).
As per claim 20:
Myslinski_1, Myslinski_2 and Tyler teach the method of fact-checking content via a web browser of claim 19.
Tyler further teaches:
“further comprising updating the database of verified information by automatically scraping one or more external trusted sources of verified information” (Paragraph [0105] Paragraph [0184] (the threat detection and warning system may be configured to performed automatically to querying (scraping) one or more of the databases storing data associated with trusted content in which such trusted content has been deemed legitimate and safe for user interaction)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Heppe et al, (US PGPUB 20220045864), systems and methods are disclosed for evaluating the veracity of online content, particularly in cases where the online content is signed/authenticated by one or more digital signatures associated with one or more users. Also disclosed are systems and methods for storing and retrieving authenticated content, and displaying authenticated content referencing other authenticated content.
Chan Lois, (US PGPUB 20220083608), a system and method for verifying the authenticity of information associated with an entity and communicating the verification status of the information across a network. The system facilitates the receipt of data relating to information associated with an entity so that a corresponding data record can be created and stored in memory. A visually perceptible element, which corresponds to the verification status of the data record, is associated with the data record so that the visually perceptible element can be displayed to a requesting computing device to communicate the verification status of the data record. If the verification status of the data record is changed, the visually perceptible element associated with the data record is changed to reflect the new verification status which is automatically changed for any requesting computing devices.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL K DEWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2196. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TONY MAHMOUDI can be reached on 571-272-4078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
/Kamal K Dewan/
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights