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
In amendments dated 6/23/26, Applicant amended claim2, canceled no claims, and added no claims. Claims 2-3 and 5-19 are presented for examination.
Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality: this claim 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,” but claim 2 now recites “wherein displaying …. comprises concurrently rendering … a plurality of graphical representations … each graphical representation comprising a logo or a name identifying a respective news source,” so the antecedent basis of the logo or name for one or more news sources in claim 13 is unclear.
Rejections under35 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, the coverage analysis comprising a distribution of the news sources of the collection that are determined to be associated with a bias, skew, or viewpoint rating across a plurality of bias, skew, or viewpoint rating categories, the distribution indicating, for each such rating category, a proportion of those news sources associated with that rating category; 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. 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. Examiner notes the distribution of news sources is a mathematical relationship. 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 displaying of the coverage analysis comprises concurrently rendering, within a common display region that also presents the summary of the first news event or topic, a plurality of graphical representations, each graphical representation comprising a logo or a name identifying a respective news source of the collection and being positioned along a common visual scale at a location determined by the bias, skew, or viewpoint rating of that respective news source, such that the relative positions of the graphical representations represent the distribution, thereby presenting on the user device the 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 (each in 0030-0031). Paragraph 0024 states “a rating system that can appropriately associate itself with a specific news source or group of news sources in context could be helpful to allow a reader to better gauge the content of a news article or report in context.“ Paragraphs 0032-0086 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. While the displaying comprises rendering data for the generated distribution within a display region on a user device, said rendering is a conventional activity of a computer when displaying data. 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).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gable (US 9,285,973).
With respect to claim 2, Gable teaches:
a. identifying, by a computer, a first news event or topic described in a first news source present in a corpus of news sources (figure 1 media analysis system implemented on a computer or computers, columns 2-3 lines 66-6 identify news story described in a news source, of multiple news sources, also column 4 lines 14-23 a plurality 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 (columns 2-3 lines 66-6 identifying other news sources with the same news story);
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 (column 14 lines 6-15 generating a summary of content);
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 (columns 2-3 lines 66-6 determining bias ratings for news sources);
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, the coverage analysis comprising a distribution of the news sources of the collection that are determined to be associated with a bias, skew, or viewpoint rating across a plurality of bias, skew, or viewpoint rating categories, the distribution indicating, for each such rating category, a proportion of those news sources associated with that rating category (columns 2-3 lines 66-6 analysis includes bias ratings of news sources, columns 5-6 lines 60-9 figure 19 showing a distribution of bias ratings for news sources with categories, also column 12 lines 1-9 figures 14a, 14b, column 16 lines 40-53 figure 9b);
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 (column 15 lines 32-54 figure 8b configured showing summary of news event with coverage analysis of bias ratings (left, center, right));
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 (column 15 lines 32-54 figure 8b communicating display); and
h. displaying both the summary of the first news event or topic and the coverage analysis on the user device, wherein displaying of the coverage analysis comprises concurrently rendering, within a common display region that also presents the summary of the first news event or topic, a plurality of graphical representations, each graphical representation comprising a logo or a name identifying a respective news source of the collection and being positioned along a common visual scale at a location determined by the bias, skew, or viewpoint rating of that respective news source, such that the relative positions of the graphical representations represent the distribution, thereby presenting on the user device the 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 (column 15 lines 32-54 display coverage analysis figures 8a, 8b with news article 810, sources from left 840a, center 840b, right 840c categories, source names for example New York Times).
With respect to claim 3, Gable teaches wherein the summary of the first news event or topic is generated only from news sources having an assigned bias, skew, or viewpoint rating (column 14 lines 6-15 summary of content from sources with bias ratings).
With respect to claim 5, Gable teaches 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 (column 3 lines 51-67 automated analysis of bias for sources collected over a period of time).
With respect to claim 7, Gable teaches 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 (column 11 lines 7-22 survey shows headlines to users from a news source).
With respect to claim 8, Gable teaches wherein each of the headlines displayed on the user device are derived from news sources having different bias, skew, or viewpoint ratings (column 11 lines 33-47 sources of news items from different biases, results are normalized).
With respect to claim 13, Gable teaches wherein one or more of a logo or a name for one or more of the news sources are displayed on the user device (figures 8a, 8b name displayed on user device for example New York Times).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gable in view of Pelleg et al (US 20200380049), hereafter Pelleg.
With respect to claim 6, all the limitations in claim 2 are addressed by Gable above. Gable does not teach:
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;
b. generating, by the computer, additional information associated with the first news event or topic; and
c. displaying the additional information on the user device.
Pelleg teaches these things:
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 (paragraph 0034 user requests additional information related to content);
b. generating, by the computer, additional information associated with the first news event or topic (paragraph 0034 search engine generates additional information related to content); and
c. displaying the additional information on the user device (paragraph 0034 user receives additional content).
It would have been obvious to have combined the function of requesting additional information for a news item in Pelleg with the news item retrieval and display techniques in Gable to provide more information to a user about bias in the content.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gable in view of Pinel et al (US 20190317648), hereafter Pinel.
With respect to claim 9, all the limitations in claims 2 and 7 are addressed by Gable above. Gable does not teach:
a. each of the headlines displayed on the user device are configured for selection by the user; 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.
Pinel teaches these things:
a. each of the headlines displayed on the user device are configured for selection by the user (paragraph 0078 user selects headline so said headline is configured for selection); 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 (paragraph 0078 selection generates display of news story from website from source).
It would have been obvious to have combined the function of selecting a headline to generate a display in Pinel with the news item retrieval and display techniques in Gable to provide a user with more data about a news story.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gable in view of Yoon et al (US 20210365486), hereafter Yoon.
With respect to claim 18, all the limitations in claim 2 are addressed by Gable above. Gable does not teach 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. Yoon teaches this functionality in deriving an Environment, Social, and Governance score for a news source from a plurality of news source items taken from said news source (paragraph 0009). It would have been obvious to have combined this functionality of calculating a score for a news source from a plurality of news items for a news source in Yoon with the news item retrieval and display techniques in Gable to derive a bias rating for a news source as an ad hoc advantage for a user request, making the combination more user-friendly.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gable in view of Reis et al (US 20090193328), hereafter Reis.
With respect to claim 19, all the limitations in claim 2 are addressed by Gable above. Gable does not teach wherein the summary generation incorporates analysis of sentiment in the news source items describing the first news event or topic. Reis teaches this functionality in analyzing sentiment for reviews about an entity (paragraph 0032). It would have been obvious to have combined this functionality of analyzing sentiment in a review in Reis with the news item retrieval and display techniques in Gable to analyze sentiment in news items for a news source to provide more information in a summary for a user.
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding rejections of claims 2-3 and 5-19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. On pages 7-8 in part A, Applicant discusses the amendments to limitations e and h and asserts these limitations “address generation of a distribution of the rated news sources across a plurality of rating categories and rendering a plurality of graphical representations of those sources positioned along a common visual scale according to their respective ratings, such that their relative positions represent the distribution.” Examiner notes limitation e is identified above as a mental process as it broadly recites generating a coverage analysis without details showing how the invention generates said coverage analysis and a BRI of said generating includes using pen and paper. Regarding Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, its Claim 1 recited particular functionality that displayed of a list of functions for an application which each launched the application and initiated that function within said application, with the list displayed with the application being in an unlaunched state, and the Court’s opinion states "these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices." In the present claims, in addition to generating a coverage analysis being a mental process, generating a distribution is a mathematical relationship, and displaying a summary of a news item and a graphical representation as a layout of the distribution is displaying data and is merely an output step of the generated distribution. Thus Examiner does not see the claims reciting a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information.
On pages 8-10 Applicant discusses Step 2A Prong One of the Alice analysis and asserts that “elements (a)-(e) of claim 2 recite operations that are practically impossible for a human to perform at scale, particularly given the claim’s requirement to operate over a corpus of news sources.” Examiner disagrees and notes limitation a is not accessing the corpus of news sources but only “identifying a first news event or topic described in a first news source that is present in a corpus of news sources.” The step of identifying a news event or topic is recited broadly and without detail showing how the invention identifies the news event or topic and a BRI of said identifying includes picking an item from a list, and thus is identified as a mental process in the rejections above. Likewise, identifying additional news sources in limitation b, generating a summary in limitation c are each also broadly recited and without details showing how the invention accomplishes each action. Limitation h is not identified as a mental process in the rejections above and is discussed with reference to the Core Wireless case above. On page 10 Applicant asserts “the claim, read as a whole and in light of the specification, is not directed to an abstract idea.” Examiner notes MPEP 2106.04(I) states "it is sufficient for this analysis for the examiner to identify that the claimed concept (the specific claim limitation(s) that the examiner believes may recite an exception) aligns with at least one judicial exception," and MPEP 2106.04(a) states "Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above."
On page 11 of his Remarks, Applicant asserts “As amended, the additional elements of claim 2 effect a specific improvement in the manner in which a user device displays and conveys information, integrating any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.” Examiner disagrees and notes the amended limitations e and h recite broadly generating a coverage analysis with a distribution and then recite displaying said coverage analysis and distribution with a summary of a news item in a conventional layout. Thus Examiner does not believe these limitations recite an improvement in how a user device displays information. On pages 11-15 Applicant asserts the claims are eligible under Step 2B. Examiner disagrees and notes the additional elements are the displaying step in h and communicating step in g of the summary and coverage analysis generated in step e. In the rejection above Examiner noted the communicating step, just like the displaying step, is recited broadly and amounts to sending data across a network, a routine and conventional activity per MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Both steps combine to display data that is generated and identified and determined in steps a-e but the invention broadly recites those steps and displaying data from those steps does not make the claims significantly more than those mental processes. On pages 15-16 Applicant asserts the dependent claims 3 and 5-19 each recite additional features that support eligibility. Examiner disagrees as these claims are each recited broadly and without details showing how the invention performs the recited actions, such as generating a summary in claims 3, 10, 12, 17, and 19, an automated analysis in claim 5 generating additional information in claim 6, deriving headlines in claims 7-9, measuring user engagement in claim 11, and deriving a bias, skew, or viewpoint rating in claim 18.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 8/27/26
Prosecution Insights