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 .
Status of Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the Amendment filed by the applicant on 3/18/2026.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
This application is being examined as a Continuation of application number 17/062,895 following a Continuation of application number 14/729,512 with an effective filing date of 06/03/2015, both Patented Cases.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 are cancelled and subsequently rolled into the independent claims 1, 9, and 15 respectively with additionally added limitations.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 15, 17, and 20 have been Amended.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § Double Patenting Arguments – Non-Statutory
Applicant’s Remarks, see page 8, filed 16 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 5-7, and 9-20 under Double Patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Non-statutory double patenting rejection has been Withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101 Arguments – Abstract Idea
Applicant’s Remarks, see pages 8-13, filed 16 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 9-12, the applicants’ argument, that the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is Improper, is respectfully traversed. The arguments do not disclose and the claims do not recite any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas, aside from the computing structures, network, and the added natural language processing recited at a high level of generality. The natural language processing element is not indicative of integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application. The determining and detecting functions, added to the claims in the amendment, are not additional elements because the claims do not place limitations on how the determining steps or detecting steps are performed. The claims also do not place any limitations on how the natural language processing operates to derive the score or how it operates to perform parsing and analyzing data recited to determine said score. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation according to the plain language of the limitations, determining a match score is both a mental process and "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" as the rest of the claims, but for the recitations of natural language processing, the device, and the network, applied as tools to implement the abstract ideas of the claims.
The determining and detecting steps that compare match scores to the thresholds are also mathematical processes that put forth both the mathematical relationship and the mathematical calculations, written in plain English. The claims do not place any limitations on these steps, which may be performed as mental processes, as certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behaviors and or relationships or interactions between people including automating historically human performed social activities, and are mathematical concept, but for the natural language processing, device, and the network.
These added steps do not alter the claims in a manner that supports the applicants’ assertions that the claims recite a specific sequence of technical operations, that are a concrete and ordered technological application indicative of integration into a practical application, as asserted on page 11-12. The identified additional elements only comprise the computing structures, the network, and natural language processing. No other elements of the claims can be identified as additional elements. Since there are no other additional elements, the computing structures, network, and natural language processing are not indicative of a practical application.
As a whole, the claimed functions are merely automating functions that were historically performed by humans, i.e. a news anchor or reporter as they attempted to be the first to scoop a new news story or a related news story through leg work, to send to particularly interested, i.e. those who watched or subscribed, e.g. readers. The difference being, that the claimed data manipulations implement computing structures, networks, and natural language processing, performed on computers, to search for and capture the prevalent news or related news stories. The claims do not preclude the claimed functions from being performed manually by a human using the device over a network or manually performing the steps recited for natural language processing.
The applicant’s arguments, on page 11, regarding non-functional descriptive information, asserting that the data characterizations are important, is not germane to the 101 argument. In computing, data is data, regardless of the characterizations. The characterized data, by itself, is not an additional element that can be indicative of a practical application, nor amount to significantly more than an identified abstract ideas, therefore, for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 101, the data is merely data when applied in a computing environment, regardless of how it is characterized.
The instant specification discloses in [0003] the invention “relates generally to improving the performance of content providing and hosting server systems and/or platforms by modifying the capabilities and enabling non-native functionality to such systems and/or platforms for automatic storyline construction based on determined breaking news from social media,” and [0004] “leverage the explosion of social data, expert knowledge and user feedback, all available on-line, to determine and track breaking (or trending) news stories.” The specification does not disclose features that improve sending, receiving, or manipulating data. The specification also does not disclose improvements to native or non-native systems, i.e. [0025] software, and platforms, e.g. [0040] social media websites. The specification is focused on manipulating content, social media interactions, user knowledge, and feedback, to relay the scoop of the most breaking news content and related content, i.e. characterized data.
The applicant’s assertion, on page 11, “the claim is directed to a particular automated media-processing and storyline-updating workflow performed by a device over a network” supports the finding that the claims are merely automating processes, applied on a device over a network, i.e. apply it. As the Examiner previously asserted, the claims are still automating content filtering as in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims are also providing social information to a person, “controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content,” as in Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Similar in nature to the instant invention, Interval Licensing LLC “claimed an attention manager for acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content.” “The district court "pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.” Therefore, the claims remain abstract ideas in the category of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” more specifically Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. The analyses under RCE now incorporate additional abstract idea categories further described in the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analyses below.
The claims do not improve on the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field as in MPEP 2106.05 (a). The claims fail to express any technical solutions or identify technical improvements to the computer, technology, or technical field, i.e. the claim itself fails to reflect any possibly disclosed improvement in technology, similar to Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims recite intended results to perform generic business functions that attempt to cover any solution to the problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanisms for accomplishing the result. That is, the claims do not place any limitations on how the identifying, searching, compiling, communicating, determining, determining, detecting, updating, or communicating, i.e. abstract ideas, are performed beyond the generalized instructions to implement the abstract ideas using networked devices that may be comprised of natural language processing.
With regards to the applicants’ assertions on pages 12-13, that the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Courts have identified well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) analyses as the pinnacle question for Step Two under Alice/Mayo, are respectfully traversed. The characterization that Step Two requires a WURC analyses is only germane when elements are identified during examination as well-understood, routine, and conventional. Since no elements, functions, features, or limitations were identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) by the Examiner, any arguments based on MPEP 2106.05(d) are Moot.
The claims do not recite any additional elements, beyond the computing structures, networks, and natural language processing. These recited additional elements are applied as tools, generally linked to the abstract ideas, and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas. This is because the claims do not recite concrete steps bounded by clear limitations that amount to additional elements beyond the abstract ideas, computing structures, network, and natural language processing, under the broadest reasonable interpretations.
On page 8 and 13, the Applicants asserts that the claims are patent eligible and respectfully requests that the rejection should be withdrawn. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained. Please find an updated rejection for 35 U.S.C. § 101 below, reflecting the amendments.
35 U.S.C. § 102 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-14, filed 16 March 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 102 in claims 11-5, 7-11, 13-17 and 19-20, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amended claim language of claims 1, 9, and 15. Please find the updated 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection below, reflecting the amended claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-5, 7-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims:
The claims recite the following functions: identify event content data in a time period, search for media related to the identified data, compile data into a message, identify additional media appearing after the storyline communication: detect a developing story related to the event, determine a match score for the additional media: parse the media and analyze parsed media relative to the breaking story, determine if the media is redundant based a score greater than a threshold, detect the media with a score less than or equal to a threshold as the development story, compile updated storyline data into a message, communicate updated data message to interested users, which are abstract ideas in the category of “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People,” including social activities, , but for the computing structures or natural language processing. The claimed steps are analogous to a news anchor identifying an event, searching resources for related content, compiling a news story, sending out the news story, and then further identifying related stories, while determining that they story is not redundant and updating the story before communicating it to their subscribers. These actions are similar in nature t to Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc, a “nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation.” Further, these functions are synonymous to In re Meyer because, like in re Meyer that recited a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, these claims recite a mental process that a news anchor would follow when searching for a notable news story in an attempt to scoop it and related stories before the competition.
The determining based on the match scores meeting or not meeting a threshold are limitations that also recite an abstract idea in the category of mathematical concepts. These limitations describe mathematical relationships between the match scores and a threshold to filter the additional media. These limitations also describe the calculations performed between the match score and the threshold to determine redundant information or detect the development story, i.e. to filter the messages.
Additionally, but for the computing structures or natural language processing, the plain meaning of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation of a person of ordinary skill, could practically be performed in the human mind because they are “basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all,” encompassing “"collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The claims place no limitations on how the two identifying, searching, compiling, two communicating, detecting, three determining, or updating functions are performed. The claims also place no limitations as to the mechanisms that perform the functions. That is, the natural language processing is recited without placing any limitations on how the natural language processing operates to derive the score through parsing and analyzing the additional media relative to the breaking news story. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as recited, natural language processing could conceivably be performed by a human using pen and paper or as a mental process. The claim recites the idea of a solution, without placing any limitations on how the match score is determined, how the media is parsed or analyzed relative to the breaking story, or how the comparison between a match score and a threshold is accomplished. There is no limitation placed on the mechanism for performing the comparison of the match scores to the thresholds which could also be performed as a mental process.
27. The claim functions recited in the claims are merely automating tasks that were historically performed by humans as they looked for a scoop that presented new and related news stories to deliver to readers, but for the devices, network resources, device over a network, or natural language processing.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claims also recite data or groups of data, i.e. mere characterizations of data or groups of data that are non-functional descriptive information limitations.
Insofar as the claims recite the hardware in the preambles and in the claims, reciting a device, network resources, and a network, each claim and the applicant’s specification at paragraphs [0026-0035] are simply reciting generic computing structures at a high level of generality without providing advances or improvements to the technology or structures themselves. The claims recite the natural language processing as an additional element, as well. The natural language processing is recited in the claim with a high level of generality. The specification further supports the broadness of the recitation in [0110] “any known or to be known natural language processing technique may be utilized herein without departing from the scope of the present disclosure.” These recitations amount to “apply it,” mere instructions to apply the Judicial Exceptions on generic computing structures or using any generic, general-purpose natural language processing technique. Claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer or using natural language processing that could be a machine learning model, as disclosed in [0039] of the specification, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). The additional elements, i.e. the general-purpose computing structures, network, and natural language processing are generally linked to the abstract ideas.
The specification does not disclose and the claims to not recite advances to identifying, searching for, compiling, sending or receiving, updating, determining scores, using natural language processing, detecting related data, parsing additional data, analyzing data, determining a match score, determining if a match score is greater or less than and equal to a threshold, determining that media with a score above the threshold is redundant data, detecting additional media with a score below or equal to the threshold as the development story, sorting, aggregating, filtering, thresholding, updating, displaying, or characterizing data. The specification does not disclose advances to the computing structures, the algorithms, natural language processing, machine learning models, data science, networks, social media platforms, integrating social media platforms.
These functions are recited at a high level of generality. The claims are focused on the nature of the data being manipulated – i.e., the descriptive nature of the data without detailing an inventive concept. The claims recite data collection, data manipulation, and communicating the data and updated data to users, i.e. abstract ideas, generally linked to the technological fields of social media, using computing structures, using natural language processing techniques, using networks, without applying or using these judicial exceptions in some other meaningful way. Therefore, the claims are nothing more than a drafting efforts designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2016.05(h)).
The claims as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.07(a)).
Step 2B: The analysis above for Step 2A is commensurate with the analysis for this Step 2B, such that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more when taken individually and in combination. The claimed elements do not result in the claims, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05).
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 recite further elements related to the identifying, searching, compiling, and communicating steps according to steps of the parent claims. These activities do not differentiate the claims from the related activities in the parent claims, which are not eligible.
Claims 2-5, 10-11, and 16-17, the claims merely narrow how the abstract ideas may be performed but do not make the claims any less abstract. Claims 2, 10, and 16 recite further limitations to the network resources. Claim 3 further limits the network resources utilized in the claims. Claim 4 declares that the news platforms are determined to be trustworthy. Claim 5 further limits the network resources that the searched media is identified from to include either media uploaded by a news source or media shared by a social media platform. Claims 11 and 17 further limits the set of network resources in the manner of claim 3 and then declares that the news platforms are determined to be trustworthy news resources in the manner of claim 4. These limitations do not add additional abstract ideas.
Regarding Claims 7, 13, and 19: The claims merely modify the abstract ideas of the independent claims, adding limitations that append the initial abstract ideas to further identify characterizations of users, compile data according to user characterizations, and deliver filtered data to each individual according to characterizations of users taken from data collected. These limitations do not add additional abstract ideas. The claims further narrow how the abstract ideas may be performed but do not make the claims any less abstract.
Regarding Claims 8, 14, and 20: The claims merely modify the abstract ideas of the independent claims, adding limitations that append the initial abstract ideas to further filter the data based on characteristics of users, data, and news sources, delivering only data matching the characterizations. These limitations do not add additional abstract ideas. The claims further narrow how the abstract ideas may be performed but do not make the claims any less abstract.
The claims do not provide any new additional limitations or meaningful limits beyond the abstract ideas enveloped in the Judicial Exception that are not addressed above in the independent claims. Therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more to the abstract idea because the claims do not recite an inventive concept beyond basic data manipulation, where generally linking the Judicial Exception to a Technological Environment, is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as a whole, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Koperski, US20120254188A1 in view of Liang, US20120109966A1.
Regarding Claims 1, 9, 15: Koperski discloses:
A method comprising: identifying, by a device, a breaking news story comprising content related to an event occurring within a predetermined time period; [0013] (content related to an event is identified) and [0039] (news story about an event including content related to the event and the specific news story and timeframe) and [0063] (relevant content during a particular timeframe);
searching, by the device, a set of network resources for media related to the content of the breaking news story; [0056] (searches for relevant news stories that are relevant to the event and other characteristics required) and [0032] (queries third-party network resources) where [0041] (discloses third-party sources are social networks and other media formats), [0098] “rapidly developing stories may be tracked”;
compiling, by the device, a storyline message, the storyline message comprising a displayable page comprising the content of the breaking news story and the media identified from the search of the set of network resources; and [0083] (identifies and indexes multiple content items, each related to an event], and [0086] “include creating and recording a story data structure for each ... The story data structure may include additional information about the story, such as a snippet, a representative content item, a representative image, or the like,” [0041] “indicates a social media message, such as a Twitter post. Other message types may be supported, including from third-party social networks (e.g., status updates or messages from a social network) and other file/media formats (e.g., Podcasts, audio files, videos).”
communicating, by the device over a network, the storyline message to a set of interested users. [0041] “to present information about a current story… the story information section 322 has been updated to include indications (e.g., links) of multiple news items in the selected story… indicates a social media message, such as a Twitter post. Other message types may be supported, including from third-party social networks (e.g., status updates or messages from a social network) and other file/media formats (e.g., Podcasts, audio files, videos).”
identifying, over the network, additional media, the additional media appearing on the network after the communication of the storyline message; [0020]
detecting, by the device, a development story related to the event, the detection comprising: [0020], [0036-0040] (the system finds stories related to the main story), [0083] (identifies and indexes multiple content items, each related to an event), and [0086] (data may include additional information about the story, such as a snippet, a representative content item, a representative image), [0098] “rapidly developing stories may be tracked”;
updating, by the device, the storyline message, the update comprising modifying a display of the content and the media to correspond to the development story; and [0036-0040] (the system updates the storyline and page, modifying the content displayed, such that it corresponds to the main story and/or the developing stories, where [0038] discloses that the system updates the page to show a storm occurring in New York, a breaking news story, [0039] discloses that the page is updated to show developing stories about and related to the storm in New York, [0040] discloses the page updates upon user selection of a developing story to show related developing stories), [0068] (stories may be modified by inclusion or removal of additional media relevant the event and top story);
communicating, by the device, over the network, the updated storyline message to the set of interested users. [0037-0041]
Where Koperski does not disclose, Liang teaches: determining, via natural language processing, a match score of the additional media, the match score determination comprising parsing the additional media and analyzing the parsed additional media relative to the content of the breaking news story, [0024] (uses natural language processing), [0077] “The similarity between two articles is computed based on one or more of: distance between document signatures computed during index; overlap between article titles; overlap between article summaries; source URLs; and/or publisher. If the similarity measure exceeds some threshold, then two articles are considered as similar.” (where the distance is reasonably interpreted as a type of match scoring that may be compared).
determining, based on the determined match score, whether the additional media is redundant information, the redundant information determination comprising determining whether the determined match score is greater than a threshold, and [0077] “The similarity between two articles is computed based on one or more of: distance between document signatures computed during index; overlap between article titles; overlap between article summaries; source URLs; and/or publisher. If the similarity measure exceeds some threshold, then two articles are considered as similar.” (where the distance is reasonably interpreted as a type of match scoring that may be compared).
detecting the additional media as the development story when the determined match score is less than or equal to the threshold; [0079] “In one embodiment, the logic for determining whether articles A and B are similar is as follows: if the article URLs are identical, return true; else if the Hamming distance between the two article signatures is lower than a pre-determined threshold, return true; else if overlap between article titles is higher than a threshold, and overlap between article summaries is higher than a threshold, return true; else, return false.” (where the distance is reasonably interpreted as a type of match scoring that may be compared, and the Hamming distance is a known in the art as a measure/score of differentiation between analyzed items.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the disclosure of Koperski with the disclosure of Liang before the effective filing date. The disclosure of Liang includes Koperski as a co-inventor and said disclosure was a precursor to the primary disclosure. The primary prior art of Koperski and the prior art of Liang each disclose similar methods of data collection used to update a storyline. However, Liang also teaches the methods using natural language processing to determine match scores and thresholding to determine if articles overlap and are therefore redundant, or if the articles are different enough to merit being a developing story. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the elements of the similar disclosures according to known methods before the effective filing date to yield predictable results. Each prior art included each element claimed, although not in a single reference, with the only difference being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. Each element merely performs the same function as it does separately and one of ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 2, 10 and 16: Koperski discloses and Liang teaches: The method of claim 1,
Koperski discloses: wherein each interested user receives the storyline message on at least one of the set of network resources, wherein the set of network resources corresponds to social media platforms. [0041] “indicates a social media message, such as a Twitter post. Other message types may be supported, including from third-party social networks (e.g., status updates or messages from a social network) and other file/media formats (e.g., Podcasts, audio files, videos).”
Regarding Claim 3: Koperski discloses and Liang teaches: The method of claim 1,
Koperski discloses: wherein the set of network resources comprises network resources corresponds to at least one of news platforms and social media platforms. [0002] “One approach aggregates article headlines from news sources worldwide.”
Regarding Claim 4: Koperski discloses and Liang teaches: The method of claim 3,
Koperski discloses: wherein the news platforms are determined trustworthy news sources. [0021] “The determined news stories may be ranked by factors such as source credibility.”
Regarding Claim 5: Koperski discloses and Liang teaches: The method of claim 1,
Koperski discloses: wherein the media identified from at least the search of the set of network resources includes at least one of set of media uploaded by a news source or media content shared via a social media platform. [0041] “indicates a social media message, such as a Twitter post. Other message types may be supported, including from third-party social networks (e.g., status updates or messages from a social network) and other file/media formats (e.g., Podcasts, audio files, videos),” and [0002] “One approach aggregates article headlines from news sources worldwide.”
Regarding Claim 7, 13, and 19: Koperski discloses and Liang teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: Koperski discloses:
identifying preferences related to each user in the set of interested users; [0037] (interests of users identified);
compiling a breaking news story for each user of the set of interested users based on each user’s respective preferences; and [0037] (system updates the story according to identified user interests);
communicating a personalized breaking news story to each of the set of interested users. [0041] “to present information about a current story… the story information section 322 has been updated to include indications (e.g., links) of multiple news items in the selected story… indicates a social media message, such as a Twitter post. Other message types may be supported, including from third-party social networks (e.g., status updates or messages from a social network) and other file/media formats (e.g., Podcasts, audio files, videos).”
Regarding Claims 8, 14, and 20: Koperski discloses and Liang teaches: The method of claim 7, further comprising: Koperski discloses:
filtering, for each of the set of interested users, the media from the set of news resources based on a user’s respective preferences, such that only media from a news resource that complies with the user’s respective preferences are included in the personalized breaking news story for the respective user. [0040] (presented media includes specific entities).
Regarding Claims 11 and 17: Koperski discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the set of network resources comprises network resources corresponds to at least one of news platforms and social media platforms, wherein the news platforms are determined trustworthy news sources. [0002] “One approach aggregates article headlines from news sources worldwide,” and [0021] “The determined news stories may be ranked by factors such as source credibility,”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA HATCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1393. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571)270-3923. 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.
ANGELA HATCH
Examiner
Art Unit 3626
/ANGELA HATCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights