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 § 112
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.
Claims 3, 5, 11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claim 3, lines 1-2 "filter content" and "input content" were already introduced in parent claim 1. The separate instance of these terms does not make reference to the prior terms (e.g., with the definite article "the") so it is unclear whether Applicant intends a separate instance of these terms or whether the terms should find antecedent basis in claim 1. For the purpose of claim interpretation in the interest of compact prosecution, each of these terms will be construed as being preceded by "the".
In Claims 5 and 11, "the most efficient" and "the highest" both lack antecedent basis and it is unclear what limitation is being referenced. For claim interpretation, "the" in each limitation will be construed as being replaced by --a--.
In Claim 16, lines 3-4, "second-stage positive speech content" and "second-stage negative speech content" were already introduced in parent claim 15. The separate instance of these terms does not make reference to the prior terms (e.g., with the definite article "the") so it is unclear whether Applicant intends a separate instance of these terms or whether the terms should find antecedent basis in claim 15. For the purpose of claim interpretation in the interest of compact prosecution, each of these terms will be construed as being preceded by "the".
In Claim 17, line 2, "a database..." was already introduced in parent claim 15. The separate instance of this term does not make reference to the prior term (e.g., with the definite article "the") so it is unclear whether Applicant intends a separate instance of this term or whether this term should find antecedent basis in claim 15. For the purpose of claim interpretation in the interest of compact prosecution, each of these terms will be construed as being preceded by "the".
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent Claims 1 and 9 are directed towards a system (i.e., provided category of invention set forth in the preamble) that include a plurality of successive "stages" and "logic." Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification, the stages can be "logical or abstract" (page 10). Moreover, the logic in the claims also amounts to an abstract data structure in the form of training/programming logic. Thus, independent claims 1 and 9 are directed towards a collection of abstract data structures or data per se that does not fall within the four statutory categories of invention under the BRI and are found to be ineligible under step 1 of the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG). The remaining dependent claims other than 8 and 14 narrow the data processed by the stages or further define the abstract data structures, and thus, are also directed towards non-statutory data per se under the BRI. As per Claims 8 and 14, these claims add a tangible medium for program code wherein, under the BRI, a tangible medium absent a clear definition or disavowal in the specification amounts to a signal per se under the BRI since a signal can be tangible by being sensed or measured. Thus, claims 8 and 14 under the BRI amount to a collection of non-statutory data per se and a signal per se that are not directed towards statutory subject matter under step 1 of the 2019 PEG.
Note also that even if claims 1 and 9 were found to be eligible under step 1, these claims would fail subject matter eligibility analysis at step 2 under the BRI. Claims 1 and 9 relate to a combination of abstract ideas under the BRI- successive filtering where a human can apply more general filtering to content(e.g., source-based) to more granular filtering of content (e.g., word-based) in stages as a mental evaluation and judgement. The training logic processing also amounts to a mathematical calculation expressed in prose under the BRI. Specifically see mathematical algorithms such as "gradient descent" among others discussed at page 31 of the specification. Per RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017)- "Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract."
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Outside of the identified abstract idea, the claimed invention only recites computer software/logic and storage media which amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an otherwise abstract idea using generic computer components.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The above identified additional generic computer components are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that are well-known, routine, and conventional as is evidenced by Bancorp Services v. Sun Life (Fed. Cir. 2012) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014). Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 9 also are not directed towards patent eligible subject matter when considered under step 2A prong 1, 2A prong 2 and 2B under the 2019 PEG. The remaining dependent claims only serve to organize the processing sequence defined in the independent claims that can be performed as a sequential mental evaluation or add a tangible medium/generic computer devices that do not amount to an inventive concept for the reasons noted in the independent claims.
Claim 15 is directed towards a computer program product comprising a "tangible non-transient computer usable medium having computer readable program code thereon." The specification offers no clear definition or disavowal of claim scope excluding signals per se for the "tangible non-transient computer-usable medium" since the specification only provides examples of various embodiments that does not amount to a definition (see Specification, Page 44). Accordingly, the ordinary and customary meaning of this term is relied upon for claim term interpretation (see the flow chart of MPEP 2111(V)). The ordinary meaning of this term would include signals per se under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) because a signal can be tangible because it can be sensed (e.g., via measuring) and can be considered as non-transient because a signal without sudden/unexpected variations in amplitude or frequency could be considered as non-transient under the BRI. Accordingly, since Applicant's modifiers do not clearly exclude signals per se from the claim as a whole by not including a clear exclusionary modifier (e.g., non-transitory), Claim 15 and its dependents 16-17 are directed towards a signal per se that does not fall within the four statutory categories of invention and have accordingly been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-5, 7, 9-11, and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3/1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,996,117. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced in the claim chart:
Instant claim
Reference Claim
Examiner Analysis
A moderation system for managing content, the system comprising: a plurality of successive stages arranged in series, each stage configured to receive input content and filter the input content to produce filtered content, a plurality of the stages each configured to forward the filtered content toward a successive stage
A toxicity moderation system, the system comprising an input configured to receive speech from a speaker; a multi-stage toxicity machine learning system including a first stage and a second stage, wherein the first stage is trained to analyze the received speech to determine whether a toxicity level of the speech meets a toxicity threshold, the first stage configured to filter-through, to the second stage, speech that meets the toxicity threshold, and further configured to filter-out speech that does not meet the toxicity threshold
The reference claim features a narrower version of multi-stage filtering in the form of first and second stages that forwards filtered content, and thus, anticipates the broader instant claim limitations.
training logic operatively coupled with the stages, the training logic configured to use information relating to speech toxicity processing by a given subsequent stage to train speech toxicity processing of an earlier stage, the given subsequent stage receiving content derived directly from the earlier stage or from at least one stage between the given subsequent stage and the earlier stage.
3. the first stage is trained using a feedback process comprising: receiving speech content; analyzing the speech content using the first stage to categorize the speech content as having first-stage positive speech content and/or first-stage negative speech content; analyzing the first-stage positive speech content using the second stage to categorize the first-stage positive speech content as having second-stage positive speech content and/or second-stage negative speech content; and updating the database using the second-stage positive speech content and/or the second-stage negative speech content.
Note that the logic is more narrowly defined as a process in the reference claim and that a more specific second stage categorization serves to feedback to the earlier first stage. Thus, the reference claim with 2-stage categorization anticipates the broader multi-stage categorization training of instant claim 1.
The system of claim 1, wherein the filtered content of each stage comprises a subset of the received input content.
the first stage configured to filter-through, to the second stage, speech that meets the toxicity threshold, and further configured to filter-out speech that does not meet the toxicity threshold
The filtered out material at the first stage of the reference claim amounts to a subset of the input content.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein at least one stage of the plurality of successive stages is configured to receive forwarded content from a prior stage and send forwarded content to a later stage.
1. the first stage configured to filter-through, to the second stage, speech that meets the toxicity threshold, and further configured to filter-out speech that does not meet the toxicity threshold
The filtered through material at the first stage of the reference claim amounts to a subset of the input content.
Note that Claims 3, 5, 7, and 9 are also not patentably distinct under non-statutory double patenting based upon claim 3 of the above reference application in view of Ebadollahi, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2009/0234831 A1) based on the proceeding claim mapping of these claims in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, relying only upon Ebadollahi and that provides the predictable result of more efficient, supervised, and organized filtering. In regards to Claim 9, this claim features an obvious embodiment variation of claim 1, and thus, maps to claim 3 of the reference patent under similar rationale. Claim 9 also further indicates an organization of more to less efficient stages in sequence that is provided by Ebadollahi for reasons similar to instant claim 3. Claims 10-11 and 13 contain subject matter respectively similar to Claim 4-5 and 7, and thus, are patentably indistinct over reference claim 3 under similar rationale.
Claim 15-17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,996,117. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as evidenced in the claim chart:
Instant claim
Reference Claim
Examiner Analysis
15. A computer program product for use on a computer system for training a multi-stage content analysis system, the computer program product comprising a tangible, non- transient computer usable medium having computer readable program code thereon, the computer readable program code comprising: program code for providing a multi-stage content analysis system, the system having a first stage and a second stage; program code for training the first stage using a database having training data with positive and/or negative examples of training content for the first stage; program code for receiving speech content; program code for analyzing the speech content using the first stage to categorize the speech content as having first-stage positive speech content and/or first-stage negative speech content; program code for analyzing the first-stage positive speech content using the second stage to categorize the first-stage positive speech content as having second-stage positive speech content and/or second-stage negative speech content; program code for updating the database using the second-stage positive speech content and/or the second-stage negative speech content; program code for discarding at least a portion of the first-stage negative speech content.
17. A method of training a multi-stage content analysis system, the method comprising: providing a multi-stage content analysis system, the system having a first stage and a second stage; training the first stage using a database having training data with positive and/or negative examples of training content for the first stage; receiving speech content; analyzing the speech content using the first stage to categorize the speech content as having first-stage positive speech content and/or first-stage negative speech content; analyzing the first-stage positive speech content using the second stage to categorize the first-stage positive speech content as having second-stage positive speech content and/or second-stage negative speech content; updating the database using the second-stage positive speech content and/or the second-stage negative speech content; discarding at least a portion of the first-stage negative speech content.
Instant claim 15 is an obvious embodiment variation of patented claim 17 in the form of the method carried out by the computer program code set forth in claim 15. Thus, the implementation of the indistinct method on a computer in the instant claim for the purpose of implementation on a general-purpose computer is not patentably distinct under non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting.
Note that further instant claims 16-17 respectively relate to reference claims 18-19 for also being computer program code embodiments of a software product for carrying out their patentably indistinct method claims. Accordingly, these claims have also been rejected under non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting.
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 1-5, 7-11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebadollahi, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2009/0234831 A1) in view of Vitaladevuni (U.S. Patent: 9,443,198).
With respect to Claim 1, Ebadollahi discloses:
A moderation system for managing content, the system comprising: a plurality of successive stages arranged in series, each stage configured to receive input content and filter the input content to produce filtered content, a plurality of the stages each configured to forward the filtered content toward a successive stage, the given subsequent stage receiving content derived directly from the earlier stage or from at least one stage between the given subsequent stage and the earlier stage. (multimedia content filtering wherein the content includes speech and the filtering involves "a plurality of filtering stages" that forward filtered content towards a successive/later stage, Paragraphs 0021 and 0034 (discussing increasing percentages of content reduced over different stages); see successive forwarded of filtered content via the processing flow of Fig. 1).
Although the successive filtering between the multiple stage of Ebadollahi relates to speech toxicity (see speech and “objectionable” content such as words discussed at Paragraphs 0021 and 0037), Ebadollhi does not teach the training logic among the various stages that uses information from a subsequent stage to train processing at an earlier stage. Vitaladevuni, however, discloses a plurality of cascaded audio classifiers/detectors such as for specific keywords (see the multiple stages of Fig. 1) including a training logic (cascade training module Fig. 2, Element 252) that can use a determination or prediction after a final stage (i.e., "all stages") to train models of a subset of stages that includes the earlier stages (Col. 4, Lines 21-58 and Col. 7, Line 52- Col. 8, Line 9).
Ebadollhi and Vitaladevuni are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in audio content classification in multiple stages. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to utilize the training logic taught by Vitaladevuni for the multi-stage content filtering taught by Ebadollhi to provide a predictable result in the form of effectively improving classification accuracy of earlier stage classifiers over time.
With respect to Claim 2, Ebadollahi further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the filtered content of each stage comprises a subset of the received input content (a percentage of content is successively removed at each stage resulting in some reduced portion of the input content at each stage, Paragraphs 0021 and 0034; see also the processing flow depicted in Fig. 1).
With respect to Claim 3, Ebadollahi further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein each stage is configured to produce filtered content from input content to forward to a less efficient stage, a given less efficient stage being more powerful than a second more efficient stage (note that in the filtering stage sequence, the earlier stages are more efficient- e.g., stage 106 can quickly categorically/definitely filter content based on a source whereas a later stage 112 is more granular and looks to semantics of specific content portions and wherein the earlier stage is less powerful in that it relies upon simple metadata checking whereas the later stage uses statistical and/or machine learning models, Paragraphs 0023 and 0029-0030; Fig. 1).
With respect to Claim 4, Ebadollahi further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein at least one stage of the plurality of successive stages is configured to receive forwarded content from a prior stage and send forwarded content to a later stage (see the processing flow depicted in Fig. 1 where content from stages 106, 108, 110, and 112 is forwarded to a successive stage of filtering).
With respect to Claim 5, Ebadollahi further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of successive stages together have a maximum moderation capacity, one stage having the most efficient stage and having the highest percentage of the maximum moderation capacity (the plurality of stages are capable of the maximum filtering/moderation percentage (U%) note that the first stage (106) is most efficient and can cut the most content at once based upon an informational source (see definitive or categorical filtering), Paragraphs 0023 and 0034; Fig. 1).
With respect to Claim 7, Ebadollahi further discloses:
The system of claim 1, further comprising a user interface to receive input from at least one stage and verify processing by one or more of the plurality of stages (system interface that allows for "human review of objectionability" based upon a result from the successive filtering where the results are "made available for review," Paragraphs 0034-0035, 0043, and 0045-0046; Figs. 1 and 4).
With respect to Claim 8, Vitaladevuni further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the training logic is executed as a computer program product comprising a tangible medium storing program code (software modules including the cascade training module residing in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, Col. 6, Lines 48-67 and Col. 12, Line 59- Col. 13, Line 8).
With respect to Claim 9, Ebadollahi discloses:
A moderation system comprising: a plurality of successive stages arranged in series from most efficient stage to least efficient stage of the plurality of stages, each stage configured to produce forwarded content from input content to forward to a less efficient stage and a second stage that is adjacent and more efficient at processing than the given stage (multimedia content filtering wherein the content includes speech and the filtering involves "a plurality of filtering stages" that forward filtered content towards a successive/later stage, Paragraphs 0021 and 0034 (discussing increasing percentages of content reduced over different stages); see successive forwarded of filtered content via the processing flow of Fig. 1; note that in the filtering stage sequence, the earlier stages are more efficient- e.g., stage 106 can quickly categorically/definitely filter content based on a source whereas a later stage 112 is more granular and looks to semantics of specific content portions and wherein the earlier stage is less powerful in that it relies upon simple metadata checking whereas the later stage uses statistical and/or machine learning models, Paragraphs 0023 and 0029-0030; Fig. 1).
Although the successive filtering between the multiple stage of Ebadollahi relates to speech toxicity (see speech and “objectionable” content such as words discussed at Paragraphs 0021 and 0037), Ebadollhi does not teach the training logic among the various stages that uses information from a subsequent/adjacent stage to train processing at an earlier stage. Vitaladevuni, however, discloses a plurality of cascaded audio classifiers/detectors such as for specific keywords (see the multiple stages of Fig. 1) including a training logic (cascade training module Fig. 2, Element 252) that can use a determination or prediction after a final stage (i.e., "all stages") to train models of a subset of stages that includes the earlier stages (Col. 4, Lines 21-58 and Col. 7, Line 52- Col. 8, Line 9).
Ebadollhi and Vitaladevuni are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in audio content classification in multiple stages. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to utilize the training logic taught by Vitaladevuni for the multi-stage content filtering taught by Ebadollhi to provide a predictable result in the form of effectively improving classification accuracy of earlier stage classifiers over time.
Claims 10-11 and 13-14 contain subject matter respectively similar to Claim 4-5 and 7-8, and thus, are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebadollahi, et al. in view of Vitaladevuni and further in view of Shah, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2021/0390948 A1).
With respect to Claim 6, Ebadollahi discloses all filtering stages performed, for example at a user device (e.g., computer, see Figs. 1 and 4) and that the first and second stages can definitively and categorically filter out content as a whole (e.g., based on data source metadata) as compared to third and fourth stages that look to more fine-grained near duplicate data instances and semantic categorization of content portions (Paragraphs 0023-0030 and Fig. 1, Elements 106, 108, 110, and 112). Ebadollahi does not teach a distribution among the four stages between a user device and off-device processing wherein the first two stages take place on the user device as already taught by Ebadollahi, but where the last two stages take place off-device. Vitaladevuni also discloses an operating environment included a client device and a remote computing device (see Fig. 2, Elements 202 and 204). Ebadollahi in view of Vitaladevuni do not teach equal distribution of classifiers/stages at a client and remote computer wherein, in the case of Ebadollahi, equal distribution amounts to the first two stages at a client device and the last two stages at the remote device. Shah, however, discloses equal distribution of detection classifiers at user and remote devices (Paragraph 0050; Fig. 1, Elements 120 and 140).
Ebadollahi, Vitaladevuni, and Shah are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in audio content classification in multiple stages. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to apply the equal distribution of classification resources at client and remote devices as taught by Shah to the distribution of the 4 classification/filtering stages taught by Ebadollahi in view of Vitaladevuni to provide a predictable result of the initial/first stages (1 and 2) performed at a client device followed by second stages (3 and 4) at a remote system that utilizes less resources at a local device balanced for the collectively more intensive processing of the latter stages (e.g., the semantic matching of Ebadollahi).
Claim 12 contains subject matter similar to Claim 6, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 would potentially be allowable if rewritten to overcome the preceding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and amended/had a terminal disclaimer filed to overcome the non-statutory double patenting rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of potentially allowable subject matter:
Independent Claim 15 is the obvious computer program product embodiment variation of the method of claim 17 in the parent application 17/497862 and contains potentially allowable subject matter over the prior art cited by the parent application examiner for the reasons noted in the 1/24/2024 Notice of Allowance (see pages 2-3). Additional prior art has been found and relied upon in the examination of the instant application, namely Ebadollahi, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2009/0234831 A1) and Vitaladevuni (U.S. Patent: 9,443,198).
Ebadollahi evidences that multi-stage content filtering of spoken media is known in the art including the removal of content after a first stage (see processing flow of Fig. 1 and the discussion at Paragraphs 0021, 0023 and 0034). Ebadollahi, however, does not teach the database-based training with positive and/or negative examples for the first stage (e.g., 106 of Fig. 1) where the database is then updated according to the second stage analysis. While Vitaladevuni teaches cascaded classifier training, (Col. 4, Lines 21-58 and Col. 7, Line 52- Col. 8, Line 9) as well as training based upon positive and negative examples (Col. 4, Line 59- Col. 5, Line 16), Vitaladevuni does not teach the database processing where a second stage of the analysis updates the database of training examples. Thus, the additional prior art fails to explicitly teach or fairly suggest the invention set forth in independent claim 15.
Further dependent claims 16-17 further limit a parent claim containing potentially allowable subject matter, and thus, are also potentially allowable over the prior art of record by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Epstein, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2015/0309987 A1)- teaches an offensive word classifier trained using labeled samples (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S WOZNIAK whose telephone number is (571)272-7632. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3, off alternate Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may 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, Andrew Flanders can be reached at (571)272-7516. 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.
JAMES S. WOZNIAK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2655
/JAMES S WOZNIAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655