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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been examined in response to application filed on 04/24/2024.
CONTINUING DATA: This application has PRO 63/498,109 04/25/2023
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 9-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Li et al. (US 2022/0229832 A1).
As to INDEPENDENT claim 1, Li discloses a computer-implemented method for generating an article, the method comprising: receiving, by a server system (fig.10; [0043], “server”), a first input corresponding to selection of an article generation method (fig.4, “415”, “410”; [0034]; the user selects a content generation method);
accessing, by the server system, a template for generating the article (fig.4, “420”; a proposed outline template is generated);
receiving, by the server system, a second input corresponding to selection of one or more components from a set of components (fig.4, “425”; the user makes a topic selection);
embedding, by the server system, the selected one or more components in the template (fig.4, “435”, “425”; the user approves the selected components);
receiving, by the server system, at least one Artificial Intelligence (AI) based recommendation for generating the article (fig.7, fig.8; [0040], [0041]; the user queries AI for suggested contents); and
generating, by the server system, the article based, at least in part, on the embedded one or more components and the at least one AI based recommendation (fig.7, fig.8; [0040], [0041]; the user selects an AI suggested content).
As to claim 2, Li discloses rendering, by the server system, a User Interface (UI) on a computing device, wherein the rendered UI depicts a What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG) editor window rendered on the computing device (fig.4-fig.9; a WYSIWYG interface is illustrated).
As to claim 3 Li discloses wherein the second input is received via the WYSIWYG editor window (fig.4, “425”; [0036]; the user selects topic component(s)).
As to claim 4, Li discloses establishing, by the server system, a secure communication with an AI service and library via Representational State Transfer Application Programming Interface (RESTful API) ([0056]; REST communication protocol is disclosed); and receiving, by the server system, the at least one AI based recommendation and media components from the AI service and library for generating the article (fig.4, fig.7, fig.9; AI recommended contents are selected and generated).
As to claim 9, Li discloses wherein the one or more components comprise at least one of carousels, tabs, media elements, embedding documents, knowledge blocks, accordions, anchors, and dynamic services (fig.4, “425”; knowledge blocks are selectable).
As to claim 10, Li discloses rendering, by the server system, the generated article on a display of the computing device (fig.9, fig.10; generated article content is opened).
INDEPENDENT claim 11, is a server variant of claim 1, therefore claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 12 is a server variant of claim 2, therefore claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 13 is a server variant of claim 3, therefore claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claim 14 is a server variant of claim 4, therefore claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claim 19 is a server variant of claim 9, therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Claim 20 is a server variant of claim 10, therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 10 above.
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.
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Macxis, JR. et al. (US 2020/0272681 A1).
As to claim 5, Li discloses receiving, by the server system, an author request comprising at least one of: subject of the article, relevant keywords, target audience for the article, and desired tone of the article (fig.4; the subject “Photosynthesis” is chosen by the user);
processing, by the server system, the author request via the AI service to generate a list of relevant topics, wherein the generated list of relevant topics is rendered on a display of the computing device (fig.4, “425”; relevant topics are generated and displayed);
receiving, by the server system, an author response comprising selection of one or more topics from the generated list of relevant topics ([0036]; user selects topic(s));
updating, by the server system, …of the template based at least on the author response (fig.4, fig.6; template is updated based on user selections). Li does not expressly disclose Document Object Model (DOM) and mapping, by the server system, each section of the DOM to custom attributes.
In the same field of endeavor, Macxis discloses Document Object Model (DOM) and mapping, by the server system, each section of the DOM to custom attributes ([0023], [0028]; DOM is updated and mapped).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Li and Macxis before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the content generation interface taught by Li to include DOM updating taught by Macxis with the motivation being to provide content generation and updating usable in an HTML environment.
As to claim 6, Li-Macxis discloses receiving, by the server system, content requests from the computing device, wherein the content requests are related to content for each section of the DOM (Li, fig.6, fig.9; Macxis, [0040]; content is requested in HTML);
processing, by the server system, the content requests via the AI service to generate content responses (fig.6, “535”; user finalizes requested content); and
generating, by the server system, the article based at least on the generated content responses (fig.9; finalized content is generated and displayed).
Claim 15 is a server variant of claim 5, therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claim 16 is a server variant of claim 6, therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Miyazaki (US 2017/0046440 A1).
As to claim 7, Li does not expressly disclose calculating, by the server system, one or more health scores associated with one or more published articles, wherein the calculation of the one or more health scores is performed based at least on analysis of one or more parameters.
In the same field of endeavor, Miyazaki discloses calculating, by the server system, one or more health scores associated with one or more published articles, wherein the calculation of the one or more health scores is performed based at least on analysis of one or more parameters ([0133]; articles are analyzed and scored).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Li and Miyazaki before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the content generation interface taught by Li to include content scoring taught by Miyazaki with the motivation being to provide scored based content recommendations.
As to claim 8, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the one or more parameters comprise at least one of orphaned articles, unused articles, least read articles, most popular articles, and search unclicked articles ([0133]; articles are scored by popularity).
Claim 17 is a server variant of claim 7, therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Claim 18 is a server variant of claim 8, therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOSHIAN SHIH whose telephone number is (571)270-1257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, FRED EHICHIOYA can be reached at (571) 272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/HAOSHIAN SHIH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179