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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/04/2024 and 04/10/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 9, 10, and 15 recite “identifying the plurality of contents”, “receiving keyword information”, “deriving a total”, “determining the degree of priority of presentation”, “receiving an evaluation value”, “receiving correction”, and “correcting the degree of priority”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the abstract idea of “mental processes” because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). That is, other than reciting “causing a computer to execute content processing”, nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by a person taking in content, receiving information on what parts of the content are considered key or important, performing calculations based on how important these parts of the content are, and then transcribing these parts of the content and how important they are for means of display.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements “causing a computer to execute content processing” are all recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, prong two).
Claims 1, 9, 10, and 15 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical applications, the additional elements of “causing a computer to execute content processing” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (Step 2B).
Dependent claims 2-8 and 11-14 are directed to the identification of the content, the weights of the parts of the content, the extraction of the content, and generally the content itself. These limitations are also related to the abstract idea of “mental processes.” That is, nothing in the claimed elements preclude the steps from practically being performed by a person taking in content, receiving information on what parts of the content are considered key or important, performing calculations based on how important these parts of the content are, and then transcribing these parts of the content and how important they are for means of display.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Teraura et al. (JP2002007744A), hereinafter referred to as Teraura.
Regarding claim 1, Teraura discloses a content processing method for determining a degree of priority of presentation of each of a plurality of contents, comprising: identifying the plurality of contents ("When a related search is selected, an input area for the corresponding search word is displayed," Teraura para [0071], it is implied that the content is identified by the searching for keywords being performed on the content);
receiving keyword information including a plurality of keywords designated by an operator and a weight for each of the plurality of keywords ("On this screen, when a search word and its weight are entered and "Start Search" is selected, the entered search word and weight are sent to the server 2 via the network, and the server 2 starts the search process," Teraura para [0071]);
deriving a total for each of the plurality of contents by summing, over the plurality of keywords, a product of a frequency of appearance of each of the plurality of keywords and the weight for the each of the plurality of keywords to obtain the total for each of the plurality of contents ("If there is a match, the variable "relevance" is calculated and added. Here, the relevance is calculated as the sum of the products of the frequency of appearance in the publication and the weights, divided by the total number of words appearing (number of words used) in the publication," Teraura para [0072]);
and determining the degree of priority of presentation of each of the plurality of contents based on the total for the each of the plurality of contents ("Furthermore, since the works are displayed in descending order of relevance, it is possible to find the desired work more quickly," Teraura para [0013] and "...the publications are displayed on the display 18 of the terminal 5 in descending order of relevance," Teraura para [0072]).
Regarding claim 5, Teraura discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Teraura further discloses wherein the contents include at least one of text, an image, or speech (Teraura para [0115]).
As to claim 9, computer-readable medium (CRM) claim 9 and method claim 1 are related as method and CRM of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the method step. Accordingly, claim 9 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to the method claim.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-8, and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraura, in view of Kamada et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0076965), hereinafter referred to as Kamada.
Regarding claim 2, Teraura discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Teraura fails to disclose wherein the identifying the plurality of contents includes: extracting a plurality of words related to the plurality of contents; and presenting the plurality of words to the operator so as to allow the operator to identify the plurality of keywords from among the plurality of words based on the plurality of words. Kamada teaches an information processing technique for weighting keywords.
Kamada teaches wherein the identifying the plurality of contents includes: extracting a plurality of words related to the plurality of contents ("The apparatus comprises: an access processor operative to process a file access designated by a user; a phrase extractor operative to extract a plurality of phrases from a file subjected to the file access," Kamada para [0007]);
and presenting the plurality of words to the operator so as to allow the operator to identify the plurality of keywords from among the plurality of words based on the plurality of words ("Therefore, keywords can be extracted from a variety of files so that accuracy in presenting useful information that matches the user's interest is improved," Kamada para [0111]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Teraura’s method of creating a degree of priority of presentation of keywords by including Kamada’s extraction of keywords and presenting them to the user. Presenting extracted words to the user allows for user input to effectively curate their own list of keywords. This helps to reduce error, as the user is more accurately able to define what they are searching for.
Regarding claim 3, Teraura discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Teraura fails to disclose wherein the weight includes a positive value (including zero) and a negative value (including zero).
Kamada teaches wherein the weight includes a positive value (including zero) and a negative value (including zero) (Kamada Fig. 4 shows a positive weight and a negative weight).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Teraura’s method of creating a degree of priority of presentation of keywords by including Kamada’s positive and negative values associated with each keyword. Using positive and negative values associated with each keyword prevents conflicting evaluations from being mixed and allows a more accurate selection of useful information suited to the user’s preference (Kamada para [0015]).
Regarding claim 4, Teraura, in view of Kamada, discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. However, Teraura fails to disclose wherein the extracting includes extracting the plurality of words from predetermined portions of the plurality of contents.
Kamada teaches wherein the extracting includes extracting the plurality of words from predetermined portions of the plurality of contents ("A phrase extractor 106 extracts a plurality of phrases from the file in accordance with a predetermined extraction rule," Kamada para [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Teraura’s method of creating a degree of priority of presentation of keywords by including Kamada’s extraction of words from predetermined portions of the content. A predetermined location for content, such as from a specific document, allows for better clarity and accuracy for the user. Because it is predetermined, the user knows where the words will be extracted from, allowing them to better curate the keywords.
Regarding claim 6, Teraura, in view of Kamada, discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. However, Teraura fails to disclose wherein the extracting a plurality of words includes: receiving a positive or negative evaluation value given by the operator to each of a plurality of contents reviewed by the operator among the plurality of contents; and identifying the plurality of words from among words related to the plurality of contents given the evaluation values so as to be able to distinguish and present positive words more strongly related to the contents given the positive evaluation values and negative words more strongly related to the contents given the negative evaluation values.
Kamada teaches wherein the extracting a plurality of words includes: receiving a positive or negative evaluation value given by the operator to each of a plurality of contents reviewed by the operator among the plurality of contents (Kamada para [0070]);
and identifying the plurality of words from among words related to the plurality of contents given the evaluation values so as to be able to distinguish and present positive words more strongly related to the contents given the positive evaluation values and negative words more strongly related to the contents given the negative evaluation values (Kamada para [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Teraura’s method of creating a degree of priority of presentation of keywords by including Kamada’s teaching of a positive or negative value associated with keywords. Associating positive or negative values with keywords allows more accurate comparison and associations between the keywords and the contents. This would allow the user to better curate a collection of keywords from the content.
Regarding claim 7, Teraura, in view of Kamada, discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. However, Teraura fails to disclose wherein the receiving keyword information includes accepting at least one of correction of the plurality of designated keywords or correction of the corresponding weights, and the determining the degree of priority includes, in response to accepting the correction, changing the degrees of priority of the contents given the evaluation values so as to present the change.
Kamada teaches wherein the receiving keyword information includes accepting at least one of correction of the plurality of designated keywords or correction of the corresponding weights (Kamada Fig. 9 reference character S22 into S26),
and the determining the degree of priority includes, in response to accepting the correction, changing the degrees of priority of the contents given the evaluation values so as to present the change (Kamada Fig. 10 reference character 154 leads to 156, which leads back to 110 and thereby 124, which is the priority keyword determination unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Teraura’s method of creating a degree of priority of presentation of keywords by including Kamada’s teaching of correcting a keyword’s weight and thereby changing its priority. Allowing a user to alter the weight that is given to a certain keyword by the system results in better creative control by the user themselves, and therefore results in higher accuracy for the keywords and content the user is attempting to seek. This addition of user input would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Teraura, in view of Kamada, discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. However, Teraura fails to disclose wherein the changing the degree of priority includes associating the degree of priority with the evaluation value so as to allow the operator to recognize the evaluation value.
Kamada teaches wherein the changing the degree of priority includes associating the degree of priority with the evaluation value so as to allow the operator to recognize the evaluation value ("A priority keyword determination unit 124 determines a priority keyword from the selected keywords in accordance with the weight associated with the keywords," Kamada para [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Teraura’s method of creating a degree of priority of presentation of keywords by including Kamada’s association of the priority with the keyword’s evaluation value. Allowing a user to alter the weight that is given to a certain keyword by the system results in better creative control by the user themselves, and therefore higher accuracy for the keywords and content the user is attempting to seek. Associating this altered value with the change in priority would be obvious, as this would be displaying the user’s actions to themselves, so that they understand and realize how their feedback and corrections alters the priority of the keywords. This would thereby increase accuracy of the system for the user’s end goal.
Regarding claim 10, Teraura discloses a content processing method for causing a computer to execute content processing for determining a degree of priority of presentation of each of a plurality of contents included in a set of contents, the content processing method comprising :identifying the set of contents ("When a related search is selected, an input area for the corresponding search word is displayed," Teraura para [0071], it is implied that the content is identified by the searching for keywords being performed on the content);
receiving keyword information including a plurality of keywords and a weight for each of the plurality of keywords ("On this screen, when a search word and its weight are entered and "Start Search" is selected, the entered search word and weight are sent to the server 2 via the network, and the server 2 starts the search process," Teraura para [0071]);
deriving a total for each of the plurality of contents by summing, over the plurality of keywords, a product of a frequency of appearance of each of the plurality of keywords and the weight for the each of the plurality of keywords to obtain the total for each of the plurality of contents ("If there is a match, the variable "relevance" is calculated and added. Here, the relevance is calculated as the sum of the products of the frequency of appearance in the publication and the weights, divided by the total number of words appearing (number of words used) in the publication," Teraura para [0072]);
determining the degree of priority of presentation of each of the plurality of contents based on the total for the each of the plurality of contents ("Furthermore, since the works are displayed in descending order of relevance, it is possible to find the desired work more quickly," Teraura para [0013] and "...the publications are displayed on the display 18 of the terminal 5 in descending order of relevance," Teraura para [0072]).
However, Teraura fails to disclose receiving an evaluation value given to each content included in a subset of the set of contents; receiving correction of the keyword information; and correcting the degree of priority by correcting the total for each of the plurality of contents based on the corrected keyword information.
Kamada teaches receiving an evaluation value given to each content included in a subset of the set of contents (Kamada para [0070]);
receiving correction of the keyword information (Kamada Fig. 9 reference character S22 into S26);
and correcting the degree of priority by correcting the total for each of the plurality of contents based on the corrected keyword information (Kamada Fig. 10 reference character 154 leads to 156, which leads back to 110 and thereby 124, which is the priority keyword determination unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Teraura’s method of creating a degree of priority of presentation of keywords by including Kamada’s teaching of receiving an evaluation value for each keyword, receiving keyword correction information, and correcting priority of the keywords based on the information. Associating an evaluation value with the keywords allows for a more accurate comparison and association between the keywords and the contents, thereby resulting in the user being able to better curate a collection of keywords from the content. Allowing a user to correct information about a keyword and correct the priority of a keyword results in better creative control by the user themselves, and therefore results in higher accuracy for the keywords and content the user is attempting to seek.
Regarding claim 11, Teraura, in view of Kamada, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. However, Teraura fails to disclose wherein the evaluation value includes a positive evaluation value or a negative evaluation value.
Kamada teaches wherein the evaluation value includes a positive evaluation value or a negative evaluation value (Kamada para [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Teraura’s method of creating a degree of priority of presentation of keywords by including Kamada’s teaching of a positive or negative value associated with keywords. Associating positive or negative values with keywords allows more accurate comparison and associations between the keywords and the contents. This would allow the user to better curate a collection of keywords from the content.
Regarding claim 12, Teraura, in view of Kamada, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Teraura further discloses wherein the frequency of appearance is the frequency of appearance of a keyword in a predetermined portion of the plurality of contents ("In the sixth aspect of the present invention, works stored in a database means are searched for based on the frequency of appearance if all of the words designated by the prospective purchaser are included in the words listed in the index of the works," Teraura para [0011]).
Regarding claim 13, Teraura, in view of Kamada, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. However, Teraura fails to disclose wherein the weight for each of the plurality of keywords is a positive value (including zero) or a negative value (including zero).
Kamada teaches wherein the weight for each of the plurality of keywords is a positive value (including zero) or a negative value (including zero) (Kamada Fig. 4 shows a positive weight and a negative weight).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Teraura’s method of creating a degree of priority of presentation of keywords by including Kamada’s positive and negative values associated with each keyword. Using positive and negative values associated with each keyword prevents conflicting evaluations from being mixed and allows a more accurate selection of useful information suited to the user’s preference (Kamada para [0015]).
Regarding claim 14, Teraura, in view of Kamada, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Teraura further discloses wherein the contents include at least one of text, an image, or speech (Teraura para [0115]).
As to claim 15, CRM claim 15 and method claim 10 are related as method and CRM of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the method step. Accordingly, claim 15 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to the method claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JP2001117937A
US Patent No. 5,732,260
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM MICHAEL WEAVER whose telephone number is (571)272-7062. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571) 272-7602. 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.
/ADAM MICHAEL WEAVER/Examiner, Art Unit 2658
/RICHEMOND DORVIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2658