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 1-18 are pending in this application and have been examined in response to application filed on 05/09/2024.
CONTINUING DATA
This application is a CON of 17/728,531 04/25/2022 PAT 12008323
17/728,531 is a CON of 16/730,377 12/30/2019 PAT 11314930
16/730,377 is a CIP of 16/272,610 02/11/2019 PAT 10521655
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 17 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US PAT. No. 12008323 (‘323). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See table below:
Instant Application
‘323
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 17
Claim 13
Claim 18 is a CRM variation of claim 1
Claim 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites: “wherein one or more of the annotated documents is an annotated version of the target electronic document” There is no mention in the original specification of comparing the target electronic document with an annotated version of the target electronic document. Thus, the limitation includes subject matter that was not described in the original specification.
Claim 13 recites: “wherein training the machine learning model based on a given training instance, of the training instances, comprises: processing, using the machine learning model, the portion of the text or the representation of the portion of the text, to generate a predicted embedding; comparing the predicted embedding to a ground truth embedding, that is based on the indication of whether the portion of the text is the corresponding source perspective portion, to generate one or more losses; and updating, based on the one or more losses, the machine learning model.” There is no mention in the original specification of comparing the predicted embedding to a ground truth embedding and updating the machine learning model based on the one or more losses. Thus, the limitation includes subject matter that was not described in the original specification.
If the examiner has overlooked the portion of the original specification that describes the feature of the present invention, then applicant should point it out (by page number and line number) in the response to this office action.
Applicant may obviate this rejection by canceling the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "whether it includes…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is not clear what the limitation “it” refers back to.
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 1-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Myslinski (US 2016/0070742 A1).
As to INDEPENDENT claim 1, Myslinski discloses a method implemented by one or more processors (fig.2, “Processor”), the method comprising: identifying a target electronic document ([0030], [0031]; a target document is identified and monitored);
processing the target electronic document to identify a source perspective portion of the target electronic document ([0034], [0036], [0052], [0055], [0061]; user statements and opinions are identified);
identifying at least one source of the target electronic document ([0038], [0074]; sources such as matching author/source/distributor of the content or comparable source information for fact checking are identified);
searching, based on identifying the at least one source of the target electronic document, one or more corpuses ([0037], [0038], [0074]; sentences are parsed);
identifying, based on the searching and from among a plurality of additional resources, at least one resource that is explanatory of the source perspective portion of the target electronic document ([0074], [0075]; additional resources related the source perspective are identified and searched);
generating, based on content of the at least one resource, a source perspective summary (fig.10; [0041], [0042]; a source perspective summary is generated); and
subsequent to generating the source perspective summary: causing a computing device that is rendering the target electronic document to render the source perspective summary for the at least one source simultaneous with the rendering of the target electronic document at the computing device ([0041]-[0043]; the source perspective summary with additional information related to the source is displayed with the target document).
As to claim 2, Myslinski discloses wherein processing the target electronic document to identify the source perspective portion of the target electronic document comprises: processing the target electronic document to determine whether it includes one or more particular terms; and identifying, as the source perspective portion of the target electronic document, a particular portion that includes the one or more particular terms ([0061]; extracted terms are weighted based on user interests).
As to claim 3, Myslinski discloses wherein the one or more particular terms reflect a subjective criteria ([0061]; extracted terms are weighted based on user interests).
As to claim 4, Myslinski discloses wherein the one or more particular terms that reflect the subjective criteria comprise one or more of: a superlative, an opinion, an assumption, or a bias ([0061], [0074]; user bias is discovered based on stored user information).
As to claim 5, Myslinski discloses wherein processing the target electronic document to identify the source perspective portion of the target electronic document comprises: comparing the target electronic document to one or more annotated documents; and identifying, based on a comparison of the target electronic document to one or more of the annotated documents, the source perspective portion of the target electronic document ([0079]; user responses (document annotating) to documents are considered).
As to claim 6, Myslinski discloses wherein one or more of the annotated documents include an indication of the source perspective portion of the target electronic document ([0079]; user responds such as likes/dislikes, comments are considered).
As to claim 7, Myslinski discloses wherein one or more of the annotated documents include a score indicative of the source perspective portion of the target electronic document ([0079]; the annotated documents are based on a user interaction threshold score).
As to claim 8, Myslinski discloses wherein the one or more annotated documents are annotated by one or more humans prior to identifying the target electronic documents ([0079]; the document is annotated by user comments).
As to claim 16, Myslinski discloses wherein the source perspective summary includes: a natural language explanation of the source perspective portion of the target electronic document, or at least one source perspective metric with respect to the source perspective portion of the target electronic document ([0038], [0074]; source perspective is weighted against multiple sources).
INDEPENDENT claim 17 is a system variation of claim 1, therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
INDEPENDENT claim 18 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variation of claim 1, therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 1 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 10-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myslinski in view of Cardie et al. (US 9,092,514 B2).
As to claim 10, Myslinski discloses wherein processing the target electronic document to identify the source perspective portion of the target electronic document comprises: processing, … the target electronic document to generate a measure that is indicative of the source perspective portion; and identifying, based on the measure that is indicative of the source perspective portion, the source perspective portion of the target electronic document ([0060],[0074]; source perspective is determined by analyzing user profiles and word count). Myslinski does not expressly disclose using a machine learning model to perform such task.
In the same field of endeavor, Cardie discloses using a machine learning model to identify the source perspective (col.10, l.9-50; opinions are identified using machine learning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Myslinski and Cardie before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the automatic content generation and fact checking taught by Myslinski to include machine learning models taught by Cardie with the motivation being to enhance accuracy by using machine learning.
As to claim 11, the prior art as combined discloses prior to processing the target electronic document to generate the output and using the machine learning model, training the machine learning model (Cardie, col.10, l.9-50; training data is provided to train the machine learning model).
As to claim 12, the prior art as combined discloses wherein training the machine learning model comprises: obtaining training instances, each of the training instances including corresponding training instance input and corresponding training instance output, the corresponding training instance input including a portion of text or a representation of the portion of the text, and the training instance output including an indication of whether the portion of the text, of the corresponding training instance input, is a corresponding source perspective portion; and training, based on the training instance, the machine learning model (col.13, l.51- col.14, l.11; sentences are tagged with the correct subset of the document-level topics to improve the training process).
As to claim 14, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the machine learning model processes the target electronic document on a token-by-token basis (Cardie, col.7, l.60-col.8, l.19; words are tokenized).
As to claim 15, the prior art as combined discloses wherein identifying the source perspective portion of the target electronic document is based on determining that the measure that is indicative of the source perspective portion satisfies a threshold (Myslinski, [0055]; source perspective is based on a lexical chain strength score).
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