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 06/03/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 04/20/2026 has been entered. New claims 16-19 have been added. Therefore, claims 1-19 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejection, on pages 9-12, the Applicant asserts that a person cannot mentally display information on a user interface, accept corrections via a user interface, or dynamically re-display updated priorities on a user interface and that these are inherently computer-implemented operations. The Applicant asserts that the claims recite a specific manner of displaying content priorities on a user interface and dynamically updating that display in response to operator corrections, a technical improvement in content review efficiency. They state that under Alice and Mayo, the recited limitations amount to significantly more than merely implementing such an idea on a generic computer. The Applicant also asserts that claim 10 is not directed to an abstract idea because it recites a specific computational process in which keyword information is received, relevance scores are calculated, a correction to the keyword information is later received, and the content priority is recalculated based on that correction. They cite Ex Parte Desjardins, citing their specification to show a technical improvement to content processing technology: improving the prioritization of a general set of content items by dynamically changing degrees of priority in response to an initial set of keywords and weight, and subsequently received correction instructions comprising updated keyword priorities and corrections.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The original claims, and the claims as amended, are merely utilizing computer devices, in this specific case “a computer system that includes one or more processors and memory” and “a user interface of a display of a user electronic device communicatively coupled to the computer system”, as tools to perform a method which is directed to an abstract idea. The claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a method and system for obtaining, analyzing, displaying, and modifying data (e.g., content items, keyword information, relevance scores). This is an abstract idea in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e. mental processes such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion) as well as mathematical formulations. The steps of obtaining content items, receiving keyword information, deriving a relevance score by summing a product of a frequency and a weight for each keyword, ordering these derived values to determine a degree of priority, displaying the keywords and their weights alongside the content items, correcting some of the keywords and/or their weights, and displaying the corrected items could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning, save for the recitation of generic computing components. Further, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The recitation of a computer system that includes one or more processors and memory” and “a user interface of a display of a user electronic device communicatively coupled to the computer system” are generic instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer or using computer devices and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The a computer system that includes one or more processors and memory” and “a user interface of a display of a user electronic device communicatively coupled to the computer system” are recited at such high-levels of generality and are used merely as tools to perform the abstract idea faster or more efficiently. There is no reasonable improvement to the functioning of the data obtaining, data analyzation, data displaying, data modification, the computing platform itself, nor to any other technology or technical field. The claims do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims, as written and amended, do not include more than mere instructions to perform the abstract method using generic computer components. Hence, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, on pages 12-14, of claims 1, 5, and 9 under Teraura et al. (JP2002007744A), hereinafter referred to as Teraura, the Applicant asserts that Teraura does not teach or suggest the features of amended claim 1. These arguments under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kamada et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0076965), hereinafter referred to as Kamada. Teraura teaches displaying on the user interface, the plurality of keywords and the corresponding weights together with the plurality of content items listed in an order based on the degrees of priority (“During a search, if the specified word matches a word listed in the related search file, the sum of the products of the occurrence frequency and the specified weight for the matching words is calculated and used as the degree of relevance. Since works with a degree of relevance equal to or greater than a certain value are regarded as searched works, it is possible to more reliably search for related works that the user wishes to purchase. Furthermore, since the works are displayed in descending order of relevance, it is possible to find the desired work more quickly,” Teraura para [0013]). Kamada teaches receiving from a user via the user interface at least one of a correction of the plurality of keywords or a correction of the corresponding weights (Kamada Fig. 9 reference character S22 into S26); and in response to receiving the correction, and in accordance with a determination that at least one of the plurality of keywords has been corrected or a determination that at least one of the corresponding weights has been corrected, changing the degrees of priority and modifying display of the changed degrees of priority on the user interface in accordance with the changed degrees of priority (Kamada Fig. 10 reference character 154 leads to 156, which leads back to 110 and thereby 124, which is the priority keyword determination unit and “As described above, according to the first embodiment, keywords are extracted from a file accessed, useful information is presented to the user based on the keywords, and the user evaluation of the file is received. The weights of the keywords extracted from the file are adjusted according to the evaluation. The keywords thus weighted are used as a reference to select useful information presented to the user in association with the file,” Kamada para [0103]). This inclusions of Kamada’s teachings would have been obvious, as modifying data within a table is a common and well-known function of data manipulation. Re-displaying the changed data would have been an obvious following step, as the user would need to view how this affected data changed.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, of claims 2-4 and 6-8 under Teraura, in view of Kamada, the Applicant asserts that Kamada does not teach or suggest the above discussed features in relation to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1. This is shown as being false, as Kamada does indeed teach the amended limitations of claim 1. Therefore, the argument concerning dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 is moot.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, of claims 10-15 under Teraura, in view of Kamada, the Applicant asserts that Teraura and Kamada do not teach or suggest the amended limitations of claim 10, specifically “receiving a correction instruction for the keyword information” and “correcting the degree of priority by correcting the relevance score for each of the plurality of content items based on the correction instruction”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kamada Fig. 9 reference character S22 into S26 shows an input from the user that adjusts the weight of the keyword, thus disclosing the receiving of a correction instruction for the 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 and Kamada para [0103] states “As described above, according to the first embodiment, keywords are extracted from a file accessed, useful information is presented to the user based on the keywords, and the user evaluation of the file is received. The weights of the keywords extracted from the file are adjusted according to the evaluation. The keywords thus weighted are used as a reference to select useful information presented to the user in association with the file.” This shows that the correction of the keyword information is received, and the weights of the keywords are adjusted, thus adjusting their degree of priority through their relevance score. This shows both of the amended limitations being taught by Kamada. Hence, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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) 1-19 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 “obtaining the plurality of content[[s]] items”, “receiving keyword information”, “deriving a relevance score”, “determining the degree of priority of presentation”, “displaying on the user interface”, “receiving an evaluation value”, “receiving from a user via the user interface at least one of a correction”, “receiving a correction instruction”, “changing the degrees of priority and modifying display”, 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” and “on a user interface of a display of a user electronic device communicatively coupled to the computer system”, 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” and “on a user interface of a display of a user electronic device communicatively coupled to the computer system” 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” and “on a user interface of a display of a user electronic device communicatively coupled to the computer system” 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 11-19 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 § 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) 1-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraura et al. (JP2002007744A), hereinafter referred to as Teraura, in view of Kamada et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0076965), hereinafter referred to as Kamada.
Regarding claim 1, Teraura discloses a content processing method for determining a degree of priority of presentation of each of a plurality of content[[s]] items, performed at a computer system that includes one or more processors and memory ("FIG. 2 shows a computer system comprising the server 2 and the terminals 3 to 7. The computer system includes a CPU 13, a storage device 14, and an input/output device 15, all of which are interconnected by a bus 12… This storage device 14 can be configured from a semiconductor memory, a hard disk, or the like," Teraura para [0053]), the method comprising: obtaining the plurality of content[[s]] items ("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), wherein the plurality of content items is stored in the memory ("This storage device 14 can be configured from a semiconductor memory, a hard disk, or the like," Teraura para [0053]);
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]);
wherein: the keyword information and the weight for each of the keywords is stored in the memory (“First, the search words specified for the search are stored (step BA1),” Teraura para [0065] and "This storage device 14 can be configured from a semiconductor memory, a hard disk, or the like," Teraura para [0053]),
the keywords are associated with the plurality of content items (Teraura para [0072]),
and the weight represents an operator-assigned importance for each of the plurality of keywords (“The screen is shown in FIG. 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 [0072]);
deriving a relevance score for each of the plurality of content[[s]] items by summing, over the plurality of keywords, a product of a frequency of appearance of each of the plurality of keywords for each of the plurality of content items and the weight for the each of the plurality of keywords to obtain the relevance score for each of the plurality of content[[s]] items ("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 on a user interface of a display of a user electronic device communicatively coupled to the computer system of each of the plurality of content[[s]] items based on the relevance score for the each of the plurality of content[[s]] items ("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]);
displaying on the user interface, the plurality of keywords and the corresponding weights together with the plurality of content items listed in an order based on the degrees of priority (“During a search, if the specified word matches a word listed in the related search file, the sum of the products of the occurrence frequency and the specified weight for the matching words is calculated and used as the degree of relevance. Since works with a degree of relevance equal to or greater than a certain value are regarded as searched works, it is possible to more reliably search for related works that the user wishes to purchase. Furthermore, since the works are displayed in descending order of relevance, it is possible to find the desired work more quickly,” Teraura para [0013]).
However, Teraura fails to disclose receiving from a user via the user interface at least one of a correction of the plurality of keywords or a correction of the corresponding weights; and in response to receiving the correction, and in accordance with a determination that at least one of the plurality of keywords has been corrected or a determination that at least one of the corresponding weights has been corrected, changing the degrees of priority and modifying display of the changed degrees of priority on the user interface in accordance with the changed degrees of priority.
Kamada teaches an information processing technique for weighting keywords.
Kamada teaches receiving from a user via the user interface at least one of a correction of the plurality of keywords or a correction of the corresponding weights (Kamada Fig. 9 reference character S22 into S26);
and in response to receiving the correction, and in accordance with a determination that at least one of the plurality of keywords has been corrected or a determination that at least one of the corresponding weights has been corrected, changing the degrees of priority and modifying display of the changed degrees of priority on the user interface in accordance with the changed degrees of priority (Kamada Fig. 10 reference character 154 leads to 156, which leads back to 110 and thereby 124, which is the priority keyword determination unit and “As described above, according to the first embodiment, keywords are extracted from a file accessed, useful information is presented to the user based on the keywords, and the user evaluation of the file is received. The weights of the keywords extracted from the file are adjusted according to the evaluation. The keywords thus weighted are used as a reference to select useful information presented to the user in association with the file,” Kamada para [0103]).
Regarding claim 2, Teraura discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Teraura fails to disclose wherein the obtaining the plurality of content[[s]] items includes: extracting a plurality of words related to the plurality of content[[s]] items; 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 wherein the obtaining the plurality of content[[s]] items includes: extracting a plurality of words related to the plurality of content[[s]] items ("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 content[[s]] items.
Kamada teaches wherein the extracting includes extracting the plurality of words from predetermined portions of the plurality of content[[s]] items ("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 5, Teraura, in view of Kamada, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Teraura further discloses wherein the plurality of content[[s]] items include at least one of text, an image, or speech (Teraura para [0115]).
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 content[[s]] items reviewed by the operator among the plurality of content[[s]] items; and identifying the plurality of words from among words related to the plurality of content[[s]] items given the evaluation values so as to be able to distinguish and present positive words more strongly related to the plurality of content[[s]] items given the positive evaluation values and negative words more strongly related to the plurality of content[[s]] items 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 content[[s]] items reviewed by the operator among the plurality of content[[s]] items (Kamada para [0070]);
and identifying the plurality of words from among words related to the plurality of content[[s]] items given the evaluation values so as to be able to distinguish and present positive words more strongly related to the plurality of content[[s]] items given the positive evaluation values and negative words more strongly related to the plurality of content[[s]] items 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 : accepting at least one of correction of the plurality of designated keywords or correction of the corresponding weights, and wherein 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 : 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 wherein 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.
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.
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 content[[s]] items included in a set of contents, the content processing method comprising: obtaining the [[set]] plurality of content[[s]] items ("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]), wherein:
the keyword information and the weight for each of the keywords is stored in a memory (“First, the search words specified for the search are stored (step BA1),” Teraura para [0065] and "This storage device 14 can be configured from a semiconductor memory, a hard disk, or the like," Teraura para [0053]),
the keywords are associated with the plurality of content items (Teraura para [0072]),
and the weight represents an operator-assigned importance for each of the plurality of keywords (“The screen is shown in FIG. 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 [0072]);
deriving a relevance score for each of the plurality of content[[s]] items by summing, over the plurality of keywords, a product of a frequency of appearance of each of the plurality of keywords for each of the plurality of content items and the weight for the each of the plurality of keywords to obtain the relevance score for each of the plurality of content[[s]] items ("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 content[[s]] items based on the relevance score for the each of the plurality of content[[s]] items ("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 item included in a subset of the [[set]] plurality of content[[s]] items; receiving a correction instruction, wherein the correction instruction comprises at least one of a correction to the plurality of keywords or a correction to the corresponding weights; and correcting the degree of priority by correcting the relevance score for each of the plurality of content[[s]] items based on the correction instruction and storing the changed degree of priority for subsequent presentation of the plurality of content items in accordance with the changed degree of priority.
Kamada teaches receiving an evaluation value given to each content item included in a subset of the [[set]] plurality of content[[s]] items (Kamada para [0070]);
receiving a correction instruction, wherein the correction instruction comprises at least one of a correction to the plurality of keywords or a correction to the corresponding weights (Kamada Fig. 9 reference character S22 into S26);
and correcting the degree of priority by correcting the relevance score for each of the plurality of content[[s]] items based on the correction instruction and storing the changed degree of priority for subsequent presentation of the plurality of content items in accordance with the changed degree of priority (Kamada Fig. 10 reference character 154 leads to 156, which leads back to 110 and thereby 124, which is the priority keyword determination unit and “As described above, according to the first embodiment, keywords are extracted from a file accessed, useful information is presented to the user based on the keywords, and the user evaluation of the file is received. The weights of the keywords extracted from the file are adjusted according to the evaluation. The keywords thus weighted are used as a reference to select useful information presented to the user in association with the file,” Kamada para [0103]).
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 content[[s]] items ("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 plurality of content[[s]] items 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.
Regarding claim 16, Teraura, in view of Kamada, disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Teraura fails to disclose wherein the user interface displays the plurality of keywords and the corresponding weights in a table, and the accepting the correction includes accepting, via the table, at least one of addition of a keyword, deletion of a keyword, or a change to the weight corresponding to a keyword.
Kamada teaches wherein the user interface displays the plurality of keywords and the corresponding weights in a table (Kamada Fig. 4 and Fig. 8 shows a table displaying keywords and their respective weights, showing the weights changing from Fig. 4 to Fig. 8), and the accepting the correction includes accepting, via the table, at least one of addition of a keyword, deletion of a keyword, or a change to the weight corresponding to a keyword (“When the user enters evaluation in S20 (Y in S22), the feedback receiving unit 154 receives the information. The weight adjusting unit 156 adjusts the positive and negative weights of all keywords selected by the weight processor 120 in accordance with the input (S26)”, Kamada para [0101]).
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 display of keywords and their weights in a table and correcting the keywords or weights within the table. Utilizing a table to display information and associated values alongside this information and then editing or changing that information is well-known and common within the art of data manipulation. This would have been an obvious inclusion.
Regarding claim 18, Teraura, in view of Kamada, disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Teraura fails to disclose wherein the user interface displays the plurality of contents in association with evaluation values indicating whether each item of the plurality of contents is positively evaluated, negatively evaluated, or otherwise evaluated, and the displaying the changed degrees of priority includes changing an order of the plurality of contents displayed on the user interface.
Kamada teaches wherein the user interface displays the plurality of contents in association with evaluation values indicating whether each item of the plurality of contents is positively evaluated, negatively evaluated, or otherwise evaluated, and the displaying the changed degrees of priority includes changing an order of the plurality of contents displayed on the user interface (Kamada Figs. 4 and 8 show the weights within the tables changing and “Alternatively, all keywords may be arranged in the descending order of positive weight so that a predetermined number of keywords with larger weights are selected as priority keywords,” Kamada para [0074], changing the order when weights change would be an obvious inclusion).
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 reordering of the presentation in the table in accordance with how the weights have changed. Ordering items within a table by weight, relevance, or value is a common and well-known practice within the art, and changing this order in accordance with the changes of the weights, relevancies, or values would have been an obvious inclusion.
Regarding claim 19, Teraura, in view of Kamada, disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Teraura further discloses executing a search of an information repository to obtain the plurality of content items as a search results (“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]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraura, in view of Kamada, and further in view of Migos et al. (US Patent No. 7,671,840), hereinafter referred to as Migos.
Regarding claim 17, Teraura, in view of Kamada, discloses all of the limitations of claim 17. However, Teraura fails to disclose wherein the user interface includes a slide bar associated with each of the plurality of keywords, and wherein accepting the correction of the corresponding weights includes accepting a change in position of a mark on the slide bar to change the weight.
Kamada further discloses further discloses wherein the user interface associated with each of the plurality of keywords, and wherein accepting the correction of the corresponding weights includes accepting a change to change the weight (Kamada Fig. 4 and Fig. 8 shows a table displaying keywords and their respective weights, showing the weights changing from Fig. 4 to Fig. 8 and “When the user enters evaluation in S20 (Y in S22), the feedback receiving unit 154 receives the information. The weight adjusting unit 156 adjusts the positive and negative weights of all keywords selected by the weight processor 120 in accordance with the input (S26)”, Kamada para [0101]).
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 display of keywords and their weights in a table and correcting the keywords or weights within the table. Utilizing a table to display information and associated values alongside this information and then editing or changing that information is well-known and common within the art of data manipulation. This would have been an obvious inclusion.
Migos teaches a system and method of a user interface control to change a parameter.
Migos teaches wherein the user interface includes a slide bar includes accepting a change in position of a mark on the slide bar to change the weight (Migos Fig. 1 reference characters 50a and 50b and Migos Fig. 3 reference character 50).
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 Migos changing of values, parameters, or weights through the use of a slide bar. Within the art of data manipulation and user interfaces, slide bars are commonly used to incrementally change values, and they are most normally utilized for volume, for example. This use of a slide bar to change a weight of a keyword would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights