DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 5-11, and 14-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 7, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-11, and 14-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Tupakula. This new ground of rejection necessitates this second non-final.
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, 9, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carr et al (US 20210232805 A1) hereafter Carr in view of Tupakula et al (US 20220067077 A1) hereafter Tupakula
Regarding claim 1, Carr teaches a system, comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to: receive a database update including at least one addition of or modification to a data record in a database, wherein the database update is determined by one or more data elements (Para 0008, The platform allows for certain users, such as the students, to contribute digital content associated with specific printed content); generate a compliance status by providing at least a portion of the database update to a multilayer monitoring process that implements at least a keyword similarity process and a trained classification model (Para 0008, The contributed digital content undergoes a content moderation process to ensure that the digital content is in compliance with policies instituted by the school), responsive to the compliance status indicating an approved database update, add or modify, based on the database update, the data record in the database (Para 0009, If, however, the contributed digital content is found to be in compliance with the policies, such digital content is stored within a database associated with the platform and further tied to the particular printed content (i.e., the student's portrait photograph) via a unique identifier); and responsive to the compliance status indicating a rejected database update, remove the database update from a pending database update queue (Para 0009, If any of the digital content is not in compliance, such digital content is rejected); generate a compliance interface comprising one or more interface elements configured to display the compliance status; and transmit the compliance interface for display (Para 0076, If any of the digital content is not in compliance with the policies, such digital content is flagged and the student is alerted).
Carr does not appear to explicitly teach wherein: the keyword similarity process and the trained classification model are executed in series, wherein the trained classification model is executed based on an output of the keyword similarity process, the multilayer monitoring process includes at least one of a text similarity process or an image recognition process, and the at least one of the text similarity process or the image recognition process is implemented in parallel with the keyword similarity process and the trained classification model.
In analogous art, Tupakula teaches wherein: the keyword similarity process and the trained classification model are executed in series, wherein the trained classification model is executed based on an output of the keyword similarity process (Para 0050, a machine learning model previously trained may be updated, or otherwise refined, to identify the extracted keywords and keyword similarities based on the previously extracted keywords), the multilayer monitoring process includes at least one of a text similarity process or an image recognition process, and the at least one of the text similarity process or the image recognition process is implemented in parallel with the keyword similarity process and the trained classification model (Para 0035, the summarizer 240 may segment the text from each of the information items 204A-204D into phrases, and/or sentences, for example, then combine the segments 239 and weight each segment based on a similarity). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carr to include the teaching of Tupakula. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide information of interest, as taught by Tupakula (Para 0024, information of interest that is available in an unstructured format may be extracted and utilized to generate the user interface).
Regarding claim 9, Carr in view of Tupakula teaches the system of claim 1, wherein prior to generating the compliance status, the processor determines a difference between the database update and the data record in the database (Para 0045, The contributed digital content undergoes a content moderation process to ensure that the digital content is in compliance with policies instituted by the school).
Claim 10 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 18 is the medium claim corresponding to the system claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carr in view of Tupakula further in view of Sculley et al (US 8788442 B1) hereafter Sculley
Regarding claim 2, Carr in view of Tupakula teaches the system of claim 1, as shown above. Carr in view of Truong does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the multilayer monitoring process is implements the trained classification model in response to an output of the keyword similarity process.
In analogous art, Scully teaches wherein the multilayer monitoring process is configured to implement the trained classification model in response to an output of the keyword similarity process (Para 22, feature values for advertisements can specify a category or topic to which content of the advertisement is directed, targeting keywords for the advertisement, resource keywords for the landing page to which the advertisement links). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carr in view of Tupakula to include the teaching of Sculley. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to perform compliance verification, as taught by Sculley (Abs, analyzing content item compliance with specified guidelines).
Regarding claim 11, Carr in view of Tupakula teaches the system of claim 10, as shown above. Carr in view of Truong does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the multilayer monitoring process implements the trained classification model in response to an output of the keyword similarity process.
In analogous art, Scully teaches wherein the multilayer monitoring process is configured to implement the trained classification model in response to an output of the keyword similarity process (Para 22, feature values for advertisements can specify a category or topic to which content of the advertisement is directed, targeting keywords for the advertisement, resource keywords for the landing page to which the advertisement links). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carr in view of Tupakula to include the teaching of Sculley. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to perform compliance verification, as taught by Sculley (Abs, analyzing content item compliance with specified guidelines).
Claims 5-8, 14-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carr in view of Tupakula in view of Ray et al (US 20120323877 A1) hereafter Ray
Regarding claim 5, Carr in view of Tupakula teaches the system of claim 1, as shown above. Carr in view of Truong does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the keyword similarity process comprises a direct match process and a distance match process.
In analogous art, Ray teaches wherein the keyword similarity process comprises a direct match process and a distance match process (Para 0053, The string similarity measure of an embodiment includes the use of a Jaro-Winkler string similarity measure or distance score associated with a mined name candidate and the original query). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carr in view of Tupakula to include the teaching of Ray. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide intelligent search capabilities, as taught by Ray (Para 0011, embodiments encompass intelligent search features).
Regarding claim 6, Carr in view of Tupakula in view of Ray teaches the system of claim 5, as shown above. Carr in view of Truong in view of Ray further teaches wherein the distance match process comprises a Jaro-Winkler distance based process (Ray, Para 0053, The string similarity measure of an embodiment includes the use of a Jaro-Winkler string similarity measure or distance score associated with a mined name candidate and the original query). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carr in view of Tupakula to include the teaching of Ray. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide intelligent search capabilities, as taught by Ray (Para 0011, embodiments encompass intelligent search features).
Regarding claim 7, Carr in view of Tupakula teaches the system of claim 1, as shown above. Carr in view of Truong does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the trained classification model comprises at least one transformer-based language model layer.
In analogous art, Ray teaches wherein the trained classification model comprises at least one transformer-based language model layer (Para 0012, components of a search service can use mined name candidates and a multi-level name constraint set to generate valid personal names that can be used as query expanders or transformers). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carr in view of Tupakula to include the teaching of Ray. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide intelligent search capabilities, as taught by Ray (Para 0011, embodiments encompass intelligent search features).
Regarding claim 8, Carr in view of Tupakula in view of Ray further teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the trained classification model comprises a first set of transformer-based language model layers configured to classify a textual element in one of a plurality classes each having a corresponding label and a second set of transformer-based language model layers configured to receive the textual element and the corresponding label and output a binary classification (Ray, Para 0030, earning certain hash functions for mapping similar names to similar binary codewords can be based in part on use of name equivalents or other measures in multiple languages). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carr in view of Tupakula to include the teaching of Ray. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide intelligent search capabilities, as taught by Ray (Para 0011, embodiments encompass intelligent search features).
Regarding claim 14, Carr in view of Tupakula teaches the system of claim 10, as shown above. Carr in view of Truong does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the keyword similarity process comprises a direct match process and a distance match process.
In analogous art, Ray teaches wherein the keyword similarity process comprises a direct match process and a distance match process (Para 0053, The string similarity measure of an embodiment includes the use of a Jaro-Winkler string similarity measure or distance score associated with a mined name candidate and the original query). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carr in view of Tupakula to include the teaching of Ray. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide intelligent search capabilities, as taught by Ray (Para 0011, embodiments encompass intelligent search features).
Regarding claim 15, Carr in view of Tupakula in view of Ray further teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the distance match process comprises a Jaro-Winkler distance based process (Ray, Para 0053, The string similarity measure of an embodiment includes the use of a Jaro-Winkler string similarity measure or distance score associated with a mined name candidate and the original query). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carr in view of Tupakula to include the teaching of Ray. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide intelligent search capabilities, as taught by Ray (Para 0011, embodiments encompass intelligent search features).
Regarding claim 16, Carr in view of Tupakula teaches the system of claim 10, as shown above. Carr in view of Truong does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the trained classification model comprises at least one transformer-based language model layer.
In analogous art, Ray teaches wherein the trained classification model comprises at least one transformer-based language model layer (Para 0012, components of a search service can use mined name candidates and a multi-level name constraint set to generate valid personal names that can be used as query expanders or transformers). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carr in view of Tupakula to include the teaching of Ray. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide intelligent search capabilities, as taught by Ray (Para 0011, embodiments encompass intelligent search features).
Regarding claim 17, Carr in view of Tupakula in view of Ray further teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the trained classification model comprises a first set of transformer-based language model layers configured to classify a textual element in one of a plurality classes each having a corresponding label and a second set of transformer-based language model layers configured to receive the textual element and the corresponding label and output a binary classification (Ray, Para 0030, earning certain hash functions for mapping similar names to similar binary codewords can be based in part on use of name equivalents or other measures in multiple languages). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carr in view of Tupakula to include the teaching of Ray. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide intelligent search capabilities, as taught by Ray (Para 0011, embodiments encompass intelligent search features).
Regarding claim 19, Carr in view of Tupakula teaches the system of claim 18, as shown above. Carr in view of Truong does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the keyword similarity process comprises a direct match process and a distance match process.
In analogous art, Ray teaches wherein the keyword similarity process comprises a direct match process and a distance match process (Para 0053, The string similarity measure of an embodiment includes the use of a Jaro-Winkler string similarity measure or distance score associated with a mined name candidate and the original query). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carr in view of Tupakula to include the teaching of Ray. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide intelligent search capabilities, as taught by Ray (Para 0011, embodiments encompass intelligent search features).
Regarding claim 20, Carr in view of Tupakula in view of Ray further teaches the system of claim 19, wherein the distance match process comprises a Jaro-Winkler distance based process. (Ray, Para 0053, The string similarity measure of an embodiment includes the use of a Jaro-Winkler string similarity measure or distance score associated with a mined name candidate and the original query). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carr in view of Tupakula to include the teaching of Ray. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide intelligent search capabilities, as taught by Ray (Para 0011, embodiments encompass intelligent search features).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brooks Hale whose telephone number is 571-272-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm est.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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.
/B.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166