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 .
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Biton et al (US 20240296288, Biton).
As to claim 19, Biton discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium for calculating a first variable representative of how a content of a work product is generated, the non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that is executable by a computer to perform processing (fig. 1), the processing comprising:
retrieving (s103, retrieve to “compare metadata”), from a memory (s102 “store metadata”), first and second values (fig. 5, Note: The values are in the right columns), the first value indicating a first characteristic (time of entry, keystrokes, revision, language, or word processing functions) of the content of the work product (first or second paragraph) and the second value indicating a second characteristic (time of entry, keystrokes, revision, language, or word processing functions) of the content of the work product, and
calculating, the first variable representative of how the content of the work product was generated based on the first and second values (s103, “compare metadata to statistical values”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1, 2, 11, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biton in view of Katayama et al (US 20020181456, Katayama).
As to claim 1, Biton discloses a method for calculating a first variable representative of how a content of a work product is generated, the method comprising:
recording (fig. 1, s101, 102), by a first processor (par. 31 “processor”), in a first memory (“memory”), (I) a first value (fig. 5, Note: The values are in the right columns), indicating a first characteristic (time of entry, keystrokes, revision, language, or word processing functions) of the content of the work product (first or second paragraph) and (ii) a second value indicating a second characteristic (time of entry, keystrokes, revision, language, or word processing functions) of the content of the work product (first or second paragraph);
retrieving and calculating (s103, compare metadata to statistical values) the first variable representative of how the content of the work product was generated based on the first and second values (fig. 5).
Biton does not disclose the steps of transmitting, from the first memory to a second memory, the first and second values and retrieving, by a second processor distinct from the first processor, from the second memory, the first and second values. In the same field of art (peripheral adapting), Katayama discloses a switch device comprising: a plurality of ports for receiving and sending data (par. 28). In one embodiment, Katayama further discloses the steps of recording, by a first processor (fig. 4, switching part 407), in a first memory (fig. 5 receiving buffer 535), data (par. 65 “stores data supplied from the switching part 407”), transmitting, from a first memory to a second memory (“temporarily stores data supplied from the receiving buffer 535”), the data; retrieving, by a second processor (central processing part 104), from the second memory (“access being issued by the central processing part 106”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kodama and Katayama, by transmitting, from the first memory to a second memory, the first and second values and retrieving, by a second processor distinct from the first processor, from the second memory the first and second values. The motivation is to improve the performance of the system (par. 26, due to separate memories).
As to claim 2, Biton/Katayama discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first characteristic of the content of the work product as an amount of time to enter a number of characters in the work product. The motivation is to improve the performance of the system (Biton, fig. 5, time of entry”).
As to claim 11, Biton/Katayama discloses the method according to claim 1, the method further includes:
estimating a likelihood that the work product was generated by artificial intelligence based on (I) an average number of words per session, each session being a duration during which the work product was opened and closed a single time, (ii) an average number of words typed per minute, or (iii) a ratio between a number of characters deleted and the first value (Biton, par. 40).
As to claim 14, Biton/Katayama discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first value is obtained repeatedly over a predetermined amount of time (Biton, par. 8).
As to claim 20, all the same elements of claim 1 are listed, but in a system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally to claim 20.
Claims 3-6, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biton in view of Katayama and further in view of Trahan (US 20240323019).
As to claim 3, Biton/Katayama discloses the method according to claim 2, but does not disclose the limitations in claim 3. In the same field of art (peripheral adapting), Trahan discloses a method for authenticating an outcome using Non-Fungible Tokens (abstract). In one embodiment, Trahan further discloses the step of receiving a real-time input of a user generating the content of the work product (par. 35 “real-time”), the real-time input of the user establishing the number of characters entered in the work product. (par. 36, “a number of keystrokes pressed by the user”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Biton/Katayama and Trahan, by receiving a real-time input of a user generating the content of the work product, the real-time input of the user establishing the number of characters entered in the work product. The motivation is to improve the reliability of the system (par. 6).
As to claim 4, Biton/Katayama/Trahan discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the second characteristic of the content of the work product is the number of characters entered in the work product (Trahan, par. 36).
As to claim 5, Biton/Katayama/Trahan discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the first variable is a ratio between the first and second values, the ratio indicating an amount of the content that was pasted into the work product (Biton, fig. 5, e.g. 3 keystrokes, 0 revision).
As to claim 6, Biton/Katayama/Trahan discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein the method further comprises: calculating, by the second processor, a likelihood that the work product was generated by artificial intelligence (Trahan, par. 36, “a number of keystrokes pressed by the user may be more than a number of keystrokes pressed by the user for generating response using the generative AI tool”), the likelihood being based on the percentage (Biton, fig. 5).
As to claim 15, Biton/Katayama/Trahan discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the number of keystrokes are generated by a user physically pressing the keys of a keyboard while generating the content of the work product (Trahan, par. 36).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kodama in view of Katayama/Bitton and further in view of Torok (US 5458425).
As to claim 7, Bitton/Katayama discloses the method according to claim 1, but does not disclose the limitations in claim 7. In the same field of art (peripheral adapting), Torok discloses a keyboard that combines a Universal (qwerty) keyboard with touch type editing means (abstract). Torok further discloses a method of counting the total number of words from the total number of keystrokes (col 5 ln 15-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Biton/Katayama and Torok, by comprising the first characteristic of the content of the work product as a number of words typed in a work product. The motivation is to improve the performance of the system the second characteristic of the content of the work product is a word count of the work product to obtain the same result. The motivation is to simplify the system.
As to claim 8, Kodama/Katayama/Torok discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the second characteristic of the content of the work product is a word count of the work product (Torok, col 5 ln 15-20).
As to claim 9, Bitton/Katayama/Torok discloses the method according to claim 8, wherein the first variable is a ratio between the first and second values, the ratio indicating an amount of the content that was pasted into the work product (Bitton, par. 48-49).
As to claim 10, Bitton/Katayama/Torok discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the method further comprises:
calculating, by the second processor, a likelihood that the work product was generated by artificial intelligence, the likelihood being based on the ratio (Bitton, fig. 5 “overall score”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bitton in view of Katayama and further in view of Shiohara (US 6822754).
As to claim 13, Bitton/Katayama discloses the method according to claim 1, but does not disclose the limitations of claim 13. In the same field of art (peripheral configuration), Shiohara discloses a method for selecting an appropriate printer or printers from among printers connected to a network to improve printing efficiency (abstract). In one embodiment, Shiohara further discloses the step of transmitting data from a first memory is housed in a first computer to a second memory is housed in a second computer, separate from the first computer (fig. 6, col 16 lns 40-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bitton/Katayama and Shiohara, by implementing the first memory housed in a first computer and the second memory housed in a second computer, separate from the first computer. The motivation is to improve the performance of the system (col 2 ln 22-24).
Claim 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bitton in view of Katayama and further in view of Hart (US 10645216).
As to claim 16, Bitton/Katayama discloses the method according to claim 1, does not disclose the limitations of claim 16. In the same field of art (peripheral configuration), Hart discloses methods for determining whether a received call originated from an artificial intelligence system (abstract). In one embodiment, Hart further discloses recording (col 9 lns 35-50 “receive audio”), in a first memory (Note: Memory is required to store audio), a third value indicating a third characteristic of the content of the work product (col 9 lns 35-50 “voice pattern”), retrieving and calculating a second variable representative of how the content of the work product was generated by comparing the third variable to a threshold (col 10, ln 30-40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bitton/Katayama and Hart, by comprising the method to:
recording, by the first processor, in the first memory, a third value indicating a third characteristic of the content of the work product;
transmitting, from the first memory to the second memory, the third value;
retrieving, by the second processor, from the second memory, the third value; and
calculating, by the second processor, a second variable representative of how the content of the work product was generated by comparing the third variable to a threshold.
The motivation is to improve the efficiency of the system (col 2 ln 10-15).
As to claim 17, Bitton/Katayama/Hart discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein the variable is a ratio between the first and second values, the ratio indicating an amount of the content that was pasted into the work product. The motivation is to improve the performance of the system (Bitton, fig. 5, e.g. 3 keystrokes, 0 revision par. 5-6).
As to claim 18, Bitton/Katayama/Hart discloses the method according to claim 17, wherein the method further comprises:
calculating, by the second processor, a likelihood that the work product was generated by artificial intelligence, the likelihood being based on the ratio and whether the third variable is higher than the threshold (Hart, col 10, ln 30-40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEAN PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1002. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Henry Tsai can be reached at 571-272-4176. 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.
/D.P/Examiner, Art Unit 2184
/HENRY TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2184