DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 21-40 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The IDS filed 11/08/2023 is considered.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0090 line 7, it appears as though “first part” should recite “first party”.
Paragraphs 0120-0123 have inconsistencies with respect to the recited “an active legislation aggregate match presentation portion” and “a detail match presentation portion”. In paragraph 0120 ‘an active legislation aggregate match presentation portion’ is designated as element 1330 but in paragraph 0121 it is designated as element 1320. In paragraph 0120 ‘a detail match presentation portion’ is designated as element 1320 but in paragraphs 0122 and 0123 it is designated as element 1330.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
5. Claim 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-40 were added by Preliminary Amendment on 11/08/2023. Applicants broadly indicate support is found throughout the application as filed, see Remarks dated 11/08/2023. The examiners unable to locate an adequate description for a number of limitations recited in the claims.
Claim 21 recites “the extended text object corresponding to descriptive text for an entity object linked with a member”. The examiner is unable to locate a teaching of this subject matter. The specification is silent with respect to “descriptive text” and “an entity object”. Further the specification does not adequately describe an extended text object that corresponds to descriptive text for an entity object linked with a member, as required by the claim.
Claim 21 recites “generate, based on one or more population classification objects that indicate quantitative values of one or more of the context identifier objects, an individual metric that indicates a quantitative correlation between the identifier text object and one or more of the context identifier objects”. The examiner is unable to locate a teaching of this subject matter. The specification is silent with respect to “an individual metric”. While the specification does describe “population classification objects”, “context identifier objects”, and “identifier text object”, the specification does not appear to adequately describe generating an individual metric that indicates a quantitative correlation between the identifier text object and one or more of the context identifier objects based on one or more population classification objects that indicate quantitative values of one or more of the context identifier objects, as required by the claim.
Claim 21 recites “generate a comparative metric indicating a quantitative agreement between the constituent population metric and an entity metric that indicates a quantitative correlation between the entity object and one or more of the context identifier objects”. The specification is silent with respect to “constituent population metric”, “entity metric”, and “entity object”. While the specification does describe generating a comparative metric, the specification does not appear to adequately describe generating a comparative metric that indicates a quantitative agreement between the constituent population metric and an entity metric that indicates a quantitative correlation between the entity object and one or more of the context identifier objects, as required by the claim.
Claim 21 recites “cause a user device to present a first graphical object that indicates the entity object at a portion of a user interface corresponding to the entity object, in response to a request corresponding to the member”. The specification is silent with respect to “a first graphical object” and “the entity object”. While the specification does describe causing the user device to present a user interface, the specification does not appear to adequately describe in response to a request corresponding to the member, presenting a first graphical object that indicates an entity object in a portion of user interface corresponding to the entity object, as required by the claim.
Claim 21 recites “cause the user device to present a second graphical object that indicates the comparative metric at the portion of the user interface”. The specification is silent with respect to “a second graphical object”. While the specification does describe causing the user device to present a comparative metric, the specification does not appear to adequately describe presenting a second graphical object that indicates the comparative metric at a portion of the user interface corresponding to an entity object, as required by the claim.
Claims 22-29 depend from claim 21 are rejected at least based on their dependency as they incorporate the subject matter of claim 21. Further, the subject matter of each of these claims is not found to be adequately described in the specification and applicants have failed to provide an indication as to where the subject matter is adequately described.
Claims 30-38 recite similar subject matter as claims 21-29 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 39 and 40 recite similar subject matter as claims 21 and 22 and are rejected for similar reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the constituent population metric" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 further recites “descriptive text”, “entity object”, “individual metric”, “constituent population metric”, “entity metric”, “first graphical object”, and “second graphical object”. The specification is silent with respect to these specific terms and therefore it is not explicitly clear what each of the terms is referring to and therefore fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 22-29 depend from claim 21 are rejected at least based on their dependency as they incorporate the subject matter of claim 21.
Claims 30-38 recite similar subject matter as claims 21-29 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 39 and 40 recite similar subject matter as claims 21 and 22 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims NOT Rejected Over the Prior Art
7. Prior art rejections have not been provided for pending claims 21-40, as these claims appear to (as best understood by the examiner in view of the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112 issues) to include subject matter not disclosed by the prior art of record. However, these claims stand rejected over 35 U.S.C. 112 and therefore are not allowable.
The prior art of record fails to disclose (as best understood by the examiner in view of the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112 issues) “generate, based on one or more population classification objects that indicate quantitative values of one or more of the context identifier objects, an individual metric that indicates a quantitative correlation between the identifier text object and one or more of the context identifier objects; generate a comparative metric indicating a quantitative agreement between the constituent population metric and an entity metric that indicates a quantitative correlation between the entity object and one or more of the context identifier objects; and cause a user device to present a first graphical object that indicates the entity object at a portion of a user interface corresponding to the entity object, in response to a request corresponding to the member; and cause the user device to present a second graphical object that indicates the comparative metric at the portion of the user interface”, as recited in independent claim 21 and similar recited in independent claims 30, and 39, in combination with the other elements recited.
The closest prior art of record, Tupa US (2015/0206265 A1), teaches querying users on specific legislative issues and compiling the responses to provide data on how closely aligned the public and elected officials’ positions are, see Paragraphs 0003-0004. Tupa describes segmenting text into evaluation text objects, see at least Paragraphs 0068 and 0099, generating context identifier objects according to the evaluation text objects, see at least Paragraphs 0069, 0078, and 0100, and presenting a user interface providing comparative data with respect to provided responses, see at least Fig. 3N. However, Tupa is silent with respect to the particulars of the independent claims, in particular the above identified subject matter in combination with the other elements recited. For example, while Tupa describes generating comparative data and displaying it in a user interface, see at least the table and pie charts in Fig. 3N, Tupa does not disclose the particulars of “generate, based on one or more population classification objects that indicate quantitative values of one or more of the context identifier objects, an individual metric that indicates a quantitative correlation between the identifier text object and one or more of the context identifier objects; generate a comparative metric indicating a quantitative agreement between the constituent population metric and an entity metric that indicates a quantitative correlation between the entity object and one or more of the context identifier objects”, “a user interface corresponding to the entity object” and “present a first graphical object…in response to a request corresponding to the member”, in combination with the other elements, as required in the claims.
The other cited prior art references teach related subject matter, but ultimately are not found to teach, alone or in combination, the combination of limitations found in each of the independent claims 21, 30, and 39.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stewart (US 2023/0274290 A1), see at least the abstract, Figs. 3, 5, and 6.
Fernández Musoles et al. (US 2021/0294781 A1), see at least the abstract.
Banke (US 2017/0301168 A1), see at least the abstract.
Ward (US 2009/0173777 A1), see at least the abstract.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571)272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
10. 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.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179