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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/26/26 has been entered.
In amendments dated 1/26/26, Applicant amended claims 2 and 12-13, canceled claim 4, and added no new claims. Claims 2-3 and 5-19 are presented for examination.
Claim Construction
Examiner notes limitation b. recites “thereby providing a collection of news sources describing the first news event or topic” and limitation h. recites “thereby configuring the user device with information associated with a distribution of the bias, skew, or viewpoint ratings for the news sources from which the summary of the first news event or topic is generated.” These clauses recite no actions performed by the claimed invention and thus Examiner gives them no patentable weight.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-3 and 5-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claim 2 recites a. identifying, by a computer, a first news event or topic described in a first news source present in a corpus of news sources; b. identifying, by the computer, additional news sources in the corpus of news sources describing the first news event or topic, thereby providing a collection of news sources describing the first news event or topic; c. generating, by the computer, a summary of the first news event or topic from processing of descriptions of the news event or topic derived from the collection of news sources describing the first news event or topic; d. determining, by the computer, whether the news sources in the collection of news sources describing the news event or topic are each associated with a bias, skew, or viewpoint rating; e. generating a coverage analysis for the first news event or topic, wherein the coverage analysis includes bias, skew, or viewpoint ratings for news sources determined to be associated with bias, skew, or viewpoint ratings. Identifying a news event and additional news sources, generating a summary of a news event, and generating a coverage analysis are recited generally and are each mental processes accomplishable in the human mind or on paper, and determining whether a news source is associated with a rating is evaluating and a mental process. Claim 2 recites additional elements of f. configuring, by the computer, both the summary of the first news event or topic and the coverage analysis for display on a user device; g. communicating, by the computer, the configured both the summary of the first news event or topic and the coverage analysis to the user device for display; and h. displaying both the summary of the first news event or topic and the coverage analysis on the user device, wherein the display includes one or more of logos or names of news sources associated with the coverage analysis, thereby configuring the user device with information associated with a distribution of the bias, skew, or viewpoint ratings for the news sources from which the summary of the first news event or topic is generated, which are each output steps and insignificant extra-solution activity. Examiner notes specification paragraphs 0003-0031 describe problems in the prior art and specific references that address said issues, which are that fact checkers being insufficient for the vast amounts of news content, said fact checkers are limited by their diligence, and ratings are unable to address issue of intentional skewing of news. Paragraph 0032 describes actions taken by the invention to address these problems, many of which are not claimed such as involving orphan items, rating orphan items, and comparing a news item with additional news items. Also, the claim steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, configuring data for display and communicating the data to a user device and displaying the summary and coverage analysis on the user device are recited generally and amount to sending data over a network per specification paragraphs 0113, 0264, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Thus the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Claim 3 recites wherein the summary of the first news event or topic is generated only from news sources having an assigned bias, skew, or viewpoint rating (generating data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 5 recites wherein the bias, skew, or viewpoint rating for a news source is assigned by automated analysis of a plurality of news source items derived from the individual news source over a period of time (assigning data from an analysis is recited generally and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Claim 6 recites a. receiving, from the user device, a request for additional information associated with the first news event or topic, wherein the request is received via user engagement with the user device (receiving a request is receiving data and amounts to receiving data over a network per specification paragraphs 0113, 0264, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II); b. generating, by the computer, additional information associated with the first news event or topic (generating additional information is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and c. displaying the additional information on the user device (displaying information amounts to sending data over a network per specification paragraphs 0113, 0264, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II). Claim 7 recites wherein headlines derived from one or more of the individual news sources describing the first news event or topic are displayed on the user device (displaying data is recited generally and amounts to sending data over a network per specification paragraphs 0113, 0264, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II). Claim 8 recites wherein each of the headlines displayed on the user device are derived from news sources having different bias, skew, or viewpoint ratings (displaying data is recited generally and amounts to sending data over a network per specification paragraphs 0113, 0264, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II).
Claim 9 recites a. each of the headlines displayed on the user device are configured for selection by the user (displaying data is recited generally and amounts to sending data over a network per specification paragraphs 0113, 0264, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II); and b. selection of a headline by the user generates a new display on the user device, wherein the new display is associated with the news source from which the selected headline was derived (displaying data is recited generally and amounts to sending data over a network per specification paragraphs 0113, 0264, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II). Claim 10 recites wherein the coverage analysis includes information associated with an absence of one or more bias, skew, or viewpoint ratings in the coverage analysis for the first news item of topic, thereby providing the user with information associated with a lack of coverage of the news source items in the summary (generating data is recited generally and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 11 recites wherein an amount of user engagement with one or more aspects of the user display is measured by the computer (measuring data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Claim 12 recites wherein one or more of the news sources used to generate the summary of the first news event or topic are not associated with a bias, skew, or viewpoint rating, and information associated with the news sources not associated with a bias, skew, or viewpoint rating are displayed on the user device (displaying data is recited generally and amounts to sending data over a network per specification paragraphs 0113, 0264, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II). Claim 13 recites wherein one or more of a logo or a name for one or more of the news sources are displayed on the user device (displaying data is recited generally and amounts to sending data over a network per specification paragraphs 0113, 0264, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II). Claim 14 recites a. a displayed logo or name associated with a news source describing the first news event or topic is selectable by the user (displaying data is recited generally and amounts to sending data over a network per specification paragraphs 0113, 0264, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II); and b. user selection of the logo or name generates a new display on the user device, wherein the new display is associated with the content in the news source describing the first news event or topic (displaying data is recited generally and amounts to sending data over a network per specification paragraphs 0113, 0264, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II). Claim 15 recites determining whether one or more news source items describing the first news event or topic originated from a single news source and, if the one or more of the news source items originated from a single news source, generating a list of duplicated news source items (determining is evaluating and a mental process).
Claim 16 recites wherein the duplicated news source items are not displayed on the user device (determining not to display data is a mental process). Claim 17 recites wherein the summary of the first news event or topic is not generated from news source items that are determined to be duplicated from a single news source (determining not to generate a summary is a mental process). Claim 18 recites wherein a bias, skew, or viewpoint rating for the first news source is derived from analysis, by the computer, of a plurality of news source items derived from the first news source (analyzing news items is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 19 recites wherein the summary generation incorporates analysis of sentiment in the news source items describing the first news event or topic (generating a summary is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Relevant Prior Art
During his search for prior art, Examiner found the following references to be relevant to Applicant's claimed invention. Each reference is listed on the Notice of References form included in this office action:
Savona et al (US 20090070346) teaches clustering and presenting news information in clusters, does not teach identifying a plurality of news sources describing a news event or topic, generating a coverage analysis for the news event or topic that includes bias, skew, or viewpoint ratings for news sources associated with said bias, skew, or viewpoint ratings, or displaying said coverage analysis (paragraphs 0005-0011, 0093-0102 figures 7A-7H); and
Pelleg et al (US 20200380049) teaches obtaining a content item and a topic of the content item, obtaining a source of the content item and identifying a bias of the source with respect to the content item, does not teach identifying a plurality of news sources describing a news event or topic, generating a coverage analysis for the news event or topic that includes bias, skew, or viewpoint ratings for news sources associated with said bias, skew, or viewpoint ratings, or displaying said coverage analysis (paragraphs 0007, 0034, 0036).
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding rejection of claims 2-19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. On page 7 of his Remarks Applicant describes Exhibit A which is a page from the GroundNews.com website. Examiner did not see an argument presented along with the Exhibit although Applicant refers to the Exhibit at different points in his Remarks. Also beginning on page 7 Applicant asserts the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. On pages 8-10 Applicant asserts steps a) through e) cannot be practically performed in the human mind because the actions in these steps cannot be performed at scale in the human mind and because said actions “recite a specific data processing pipeline that exceeds human cognitive abilities.” Applicant discusses SRI International, Inc. V. Cisco Systems, Inc. and asserts “step a) of claim 2 recites accessing a ‘corpus’ which the specification describes not as a static collection of documents but as a dynamic, electronic aggregation of diverse streams of information” and refers to “specification, cols. 13-14, lines. 51-2 (describing ‘news sources’) and cols-14-15, lines 51-64 (describing ‘news events or topics’).” Both the printed specification and the pre-grant publication of the specification (US 20240257272) have paragraph numbers and not line numbers so Examiner is unsure what parts of the specification these citations refer to (paragraph 0047?). Step a) of claim 2 recites a corpus of news sources and paragraphs 0032 and 0036 describes a corpus of news sources as a plurality of news sources which are more than two news sources, and the claims do not recite news aggregation or feeds or streams of any kind. Even if the claims did recite news aggregation, MPEP 2106.04(2a)(2)(III)(C) states “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and Examiner notes conditions 1 (“performing a mental process on a generic computer”) and 3 (“using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process”) from this section apply to the mental process steps recited in a) through e). On page 9 Applicant asserts “the ‘determining’ of bias or skew ratings in claim 2, step (c) involves complex algorithmic scoring and normalization across a massive dataset, rather than subjective human mental processing.” Examiner disagrees and notes step c) does not recite determining a bias or skew ratings but merely determines whether news sources as associated with a bias or skew rating. Step e) recites “generating a coverage analysis for the first news event or topic” but recites no details of how that might show an improvement in said generating, and step f) recites no configuration details of a device display but merely recites configuring for display on a user device. Examiner agrees however that step f) is not a mental process and is indeed identified in the rejections above as an additional element.
On page 11 part b, Applicant asserts “the steps of claim 2 are rooted in a process specific to computers” and again cites to specification columns 14-15 lines 51-2 which Examiner does not understand but is excerpted as paragraph 0047 from the specification. Examiner disagrees and, while the claims still do not recite aggregating news from RSS or feeds, Applicant asserts “modern digital news information consumption involves high-velocity streams from disparate electronic sources (e.g., online publisher websites, RSS feeds, social media sources) where a "bias or skew" of a specific news source will be effectively invisible to the user” and “a news item in a news source will be delivered to a user without any associated information about a "bias or skew" that may be associated with a publisher of a news source.” Examiner notes people read or at least pay attention to one article at a time at a news source, however briefly, and specification paragraph 0007 states “it could be expected that most reasonably well-informed people would possess an ability to recognize whether information being delivered to them was, at least in some sense, biased, skewed, or filtered to limit objectivity.” Steps a) through e) each recite limitations broadly and without details that a human being might not be practically able to perform and they merely use a generic computer (or an aggregator if it was claimed) as a tool. The steps recite no specific technical methods but conclusive steps of a method (identifying a news event or topic, identifying additional news sources, generating a summary of the first news event or topic, determining association with a rating, and generating a coverage analysis) and thus Examiner believes these steps are each mental processes as identified above.
On page 13 Applicant discusses Step 2 Prong One of the Eligibility Analysis in Alice, Applicant asserts dependent claims 2-3 and 5-19 are also directed to a practical application. Applicant states “this rejection effectively conflates the breadth of the claim with the nature of the claim” and then quotes from McRO, Inc. V. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., "the concern underlying the judicial exception to § 101 is not that the claim is broad, but that it recites a result without reciting a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology." Examiner agrees with this sentiment and notes the independent claim does not recite a specific method to achieve the result of “managing news” and the dependent claims here are also broadly recited and contain no specific improvements on the technology of managing news or to a function of a computer. Examiner disagrees that the claims focus on identifying bias or skew and the claims improve no efficiency of information access for a user. On page 14 Applicant discusses Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp. and asserts “Enfish confirms that eligibility turns on whether the claims are directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality, not on whether they recite implementation detail.” Examiner agrees and notes the claims recite no improvement in computer functionality but rather recites known functions like generating data (a coverage analysis, a summary), identifying data (a first news event or topic, additional news sources), and determining if a news source is associated with a bias or skew rating, and performs each activity using a generic computer. On pages 14-15 Applicant discusses DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com, L.P., BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. V. AT&T Mobility LLC, and CardioNet, LLC V. InfoBionic, Inc. and asserts “claim 2 recites a specific technical configuration for filtering and analyzing data to address a challenge particular to the Internet.” Examiner disagrees and notes no specific technical configuration is recited. The claim does not recite ingesting any heterogeneous news sources or computing bias or skew ratings and the claim only recites generating a coverage analysis for display on a user device with no structure or detail except that said analysis includes bias or skew ratings.
On page 16 Applicant quotes from specification paragraph 0031 that says “there was a need for a news and information delivery systems and methods that can allow news source items describing news events or topics of interest to be automatically recognized from a large number of news sources in a timely manner for use thereof in newsfeeds, or for use as other forms of information, while at the same time enabling a user to better and more easily assess a bias, skew, or viewpoint associated with each of the news source items displayed in the newsfeed.” Examiner further notes the bias or skew ratings included in the generated coverage analysis are associated with news sources and not specifically associated with any news items. Applicant also asserts “the presentation of at least one news source item including different ideological or political viewpoints can reduce user perception that the news source items being presented to a user are directed to a single bias, skew, or viewpoint, perhaps for the purpose of persuasion or indoctrination.” Examiner notes the claims do not recite presenting news source items that include different ideological viewpoints either. Examiner believes there is no improvement recited in any technology related to a news and information delivery system. On page 17 Applicant discusses Step 2B of the Eligibility Analysis and on page 18 asserts “this specific arrangement, namely, transforming a heterogeneous corpus of news data into a unified visual presentation of new source bias ratings in combination with a news event or topic summary from a plurality of descriptions derived from different news sources, is not a routine or conventional generic computer function. Rather, it is a specific technological process for solving the problem of news literacy and "filter bubbles." (See, e.g., Specification, paras. 0003-0031).” Examiner founds nothing in the specification about “filter bubbles” so does not comment on that but notes the additional elements (f. configuring, by the computer, both the summary and the coverage analysis for display on a user device; g. communicating, by the computer, both the summary and the coverage analysis to the user device for display; and h. displaying both the summary and the coverage analysis on the user device) are recited broadly and represent well known and generic computer functions for displaying data. Per the considerations in MPEP 2106.05(a), these additional elements do not improve the function of a computer or a technology, are nominal to the inventive entity’s capabilities, and do nothing more than display data generated by the mental process steps in a) through e).
On page 19 Applicant discusses Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. V. LG Elecs., Inc. and asserts that “claims reciting improvements to the way a user interacts with a computer are patent eligible.” Examiner agrees and notes the claims here recite no improvements with the way a user interacts with a computer. Limitation h recites displaying data and the device is “thereby” configured with information associated with a distribution of bias or skew ratings. There is no specific organization of information recited and Examiner sees nothing recited that reduces a cognitive burden on the user. Thus the additional elements are not significantly more than the recited mental processes. On page 20 Applicant asserts Examiner provided no evidence that the combination of additional elements was routine and convention but Examiner provided evidence from the MPEP both in the rejection citing MPEP 2106.05(d) part II and here citing 2106.05(a). Applicant then mentions the dependent claims as being allowable, which Examiner disagrees with as the independent claim 2 upon which they depend is not allowable. The automated analysis in claims 5 and 18 is recited broadly without detail and is still just analysis. Measuring user engagement in claim 11 is also recited broadly without details on how the invention measures or determines user engagement. The recited analysis of sentiment in claim 19 is also broad and without details of how the invention analyzes sentiment. Examiner sees no complex logic recited in claims 3, 10, and 15-17 as the actions in each claim are recited broadly and without details showing any complexity. Claims 15-17 recite actions broadly and recite no improvements. The additional elements of claims 6-9, 12, and 14 broadly recite receiving and displaying data and are likewise routine and conventional activities of a computer. On page 21 Applicant mentions Ex Parte Mercer and Exhibit B and asserts “the Examiner has provided no evidence that these specific technical combinations are ‘mental’ or ‘routine.’ Examiner does not see and specific technical combinations discussed and did not see an explanation or specific technical combinations in the Exhibit or any other argument and has no comment on it.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571 270-5626. 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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 3/19/26