DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filling the application on 7/15/2024.
The application has claims 1-20 present. All present claims have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/15/2024, 11/11/2024, 5/27/2025, 9/08/2025, 11/05/2025 and 05/01/2026 filed before the mailing date of the non-final office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a “Method” comprising steps that may be mental process (prong 1). The overall process presented in the claim is to summarize text from a document in real time. The desired part of the text from a document is summarized in a desired sentiment. See par. 6 of the specification. The steps taken provide an opportunity to select a specific sentiment in which the summary of the text should be changed to and provided.
Limitations under Step 2A - prong 1:
The specific limitations of
- “receiving, by a user device, an instruction to summarize a document displayed on the user device” (is a mental process; someone instructing to summarize a document).
“determining, by the user device, main content of the document displayed on the user device” (is a mental process; determine main content of document).
“extracting, by the user device, texts from the main content”; (is a mental process; a person can mentally extract text from a document or do this via an aid).
“concatenating, by the user device, the texts thus extracted into a text block (is a mental process with an aid; a person can mentally order or organize the texts; the limitation for putting them in a text block, can be simply be writing it down via an aid)
Limitations under Step 2A - prong 2:
The limitations of
“calling, by the user device, an artificial intelligence (AI) platform with the text block and a summarization range, wherein the AI platform processes the text block according to the summarization range and produces a sentiment of the text block and a summary of the text block in the summarization range” (is interpreted as simply having a machine do the summarizing. This would fall under “apply it” or having mere instructions implement the abstract idea) (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
“receiving, by the user device, the sentiment of the text block and the summary of the text block in the summarization range” (this is interpreted as mere data gathering (receiving the summary)) (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“displaying, by the user device, the sentiment of the text block and the summary of the text block in the summarization range in context of the document displayed on the user device” (this is interpreted as mere data gathering (display the summary)) (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – not significant more.
Thus, the recited “Method” is an abstract idea in that it is not tied to a particular machine or apparatus and it does not transform a particular article into a different state or thing. Furthermore, the additional element of using a computer as a tool to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the recited method is non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 2: wherein the document is displayed in a web page and wherein the determining the main content of the document displayed on the user device comprises examining source code of the web page and using tags in the source code to identify text nodes in the source code (a person can look at the content with markup to determine main content). As such, it further describes the abstract idea previously identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 3: wherein the extracting the texts from the main content comprises parsing the text nodes and extracting the texts from the text nodes (a person can look at the content with markup to determine main content or content withing certain markup tags). As such, it further describes the abstract idea previously identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 4: wherein displaying the sentiment of the text block and the summary of the text block in the summarization range in context of the document comprises generating a window or page that overlays a portion of the document displayed on the user device (is interpreted as simply having a machine do the summarizing. This would fall under “apply it” or having mere instructions implement the abstract idea). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 5: wherein the user device comprises an agent of the AI platform and wherein the determining, the extracting, the concatenating, and the calling are performed by the agent of the AI platform (is interpreted as simply having a machine do the summarizing. This would fall under “apply it” or having mere instructions implement the abstract idea). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 6: wherein the agent operates independently of any application through which the document is displayed on the user device (This would fall under “apply it” or having mere instructions implement the abstract idea). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 7: wherein the determining, the extracting, the concatenating, and the calling are performed by an extension of a browser application through which the document is displayed on the user device (This would fall under “apply it” or having mere instructions implement the abstract idea). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 8-14 and 15-20 provide the same limitations as claims 1-7 in system and computer product embodiments. As such are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11017179. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims on the instant application are broader that the claims on patent ‘179. Claim mapping is shown below.
Instant application
Patent No. 11017179
1. A method, comprising: receiving, by a user device, an instruction to summarize a document displayed on the user device;
responsive to the instruction,
determining, by the user device, main content of the document displayed on the user device;
extracting, by the user device, texts from the main content;
concatenating, by the user device, the texts thus extracted into a text block;
calling, by the user device, an artificial intelligence (AI) platform with the text block and a summarization range, wherein the AI platform processes the text block according to the summarization range and produces a sentiment of the text block and a summary of the text block in the summarization range;
receiving, by the user device, the sentiment of the text block and the summary of the text block in the summarization range; and
displaying, by the user device, the sentiment of the text block and the summary of the text block in the summarization range in context of the document displayed on the user device.
1. A method, comprising: receiving, by a summarizer on a user device, an instruction from a user to summarize content displayed on the user device;
responsive to the instruction from the user, examining, by the summarizer, the content displayed on the user device;
determining, by the summarizer based on the examining, a main body of the content; extracting, by the summarizer, texts from the main body of the content;
concatenating, by the summarizer, the texts from the main body of the content into a text block;
making, by the summarizer, a call to an artificial intelligence (AI) platform, the AI platform having a summarization component and a sentiment analyzer component, the call containing the text block and specifying: a summarization range for summarizing the text block,
the summarization component of the AI platform for generating a summary of the text block in the summarization range, and the sentiment analyzer component of the AI platform for generating a sentiment of the text block,
wherein the AI platform returns, to the summarizer on the user device, the sentiment and the summary in the summarization range;
and instructing, by the summarizer, an application on the user device to display the sentiment and the summary in the summarization range on the user device.
Claims 8 and 15 of the instant application contain the same limitations as claims 1 of the instant application but in a system and a non-transitory CRM form and are rejected in a similar matter as claims 1 over Pat ‘179.
Claims (2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17) is/are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11017179 in view of Lee et al. (US 20180150905).
In regards to claims (2, 9 and 16), Pat ‘179 doesn’t specifically teach wherein the document is displayed in a web page and wherein the determining the main content of the document displayed on the user device comprises examining source code of the web page and using tags in the source code to identify text nodes in the source code.
Lee teaches wherein the document is displayed in a web page and wherein the determining the main content of the document displayed on the user device comprises examining source code of the web page and using tags in the source code to identify text nodes in the source code (see Lee at least para 119-121: analyses the source code. On para 102-103, 118-128: a summarization unit, it teaches determine the main content selected for summarization).
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 Pat ‘179 with Lee, since it provides means to properly recognize the content that is to be analyzed and summarized.
In regards to claims (3, 10 and 17), Pat ‘179 doesn’t specifically teach wherein the extracting the texts from the main content comprises parsing the text nodes and extracting the texts from the text nodes.
Lee teaches wherein the extracting the texts from the main content comprises parsing the text nodes and extracting the texts from the text nodes (see Lee at least para 119-121: analyses the source code).
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 Pat ‘179 with Lee, since it provides means to properly recognize the content that is to be analyzed and summarized.
Claims (4, 11 and 18) are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11017179 in view of Fukatsu et al. (US 20040141016).
In regards to claims (4, 11 and 18), Pat ‘179 teaches all the limitations, but doesn’t specifically teach comprises generating a window or page that overlays a portion of the document displayed on the user device
Fukatsu teaches comprises generating a window or page that overlays a portion of the document displayed on the user device (see para 11: teaches using window interface to display summary or preview of content).
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 Pat ‘179 with Fukatsu, since it provides means to facilitated the display of the summary information.
Claims (5, 6, 12, 13 and 19) are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11017179 in view of Lee et al. (US 20180150905) and in view of Luo et al. (US 20170277668).
In regards to claims (5 and 12), Pat ‘179 doesn’t specifically teach wherein the user device comprises an agent of the AI platform and wherein the determining, the extracting, and the calling are performed by the agent of the AI platform.
Lee teaches wherein the user device comprises an agent of the AI platform and wherein the determining, the extracting, and the calling are performed by the agent of the AI platform (see FIG. 11, abstract and at least para 3, 9, 102-104, 118-128, 149, 153-160; the summarization unit, the process obtains the selected content text and the summarization model processes and combines the text and generates the summary).
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 Pat ‘179 with Lee, since it provides means to enhance the summarization process by employing the AI agents which are trained specifically for the tasks, thus improving the summarization.
Pat ‘179 doesn’t specifically teach concatenating.
Luo teaches concatenating (see at least para 146; combining text that is to be summarized. Combines text that may have headers or images in between, thus only leaving the text that is going to be summarize).
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 Pat ‘179 with Luo, since it provides means to strip away any unwanted content that is not part of the text to be summarized.
In regards to claims (6 and 13), Pat ‘179 doesn’t specifically teach wherein the agent operates independently of any application through which the document is displayed on the user device.
Lee teaches wherein the agent operates independently of any application through which the document is displayed on the user device (see para 153-160: independently and sends the summary to the application).
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 Pat ‘179 with Lee, since it provides means to enhance the summarization process by employing the independent unit which allows the agent to autonomously process information and interact with workflows in the background without requiring users to manually navigate multiple app.
In regards to claim 19, Pat ‘179 doesn’t specifically teach teaches wherein the user device comprises an agent of the AI platform, wherein the determining, the extracting, and the calling are performed by the agent of the AI platform and wherein the agent operates independently of any application through which the document is displayed on the user device.
Lee teaches wherein the user device comprises an agent of the AI platform, wherein the determining, the extracting, and the calling are performed by the agent of the AI platform (see FIG. 11, abstract and at least para 3, 9, 102-104, 118-128, 149, 153-160; the summarization unit, the process obtains the selected content text and the summarization model processes and combines the text and generates the summary), and wherein the agent operates independently of any application through which the document is displayed on the user device (see para 153-160: working and processing independently and sends the summary to the application).
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 Pat ‘179 with Lee, since it provides means to enhance the summarization process by employing the AI agents which are trained specifically for the tasks, thus improving the summarization.
Pat ‘179 doesn’t specifically teach concatenating.
Luo teaches concatenating (see at least para 146; combining text that is to be summarized. Combines text that may have headers or images in between, thus only leaving the text that is going to be summarize).
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 Luo with the teachings of Lee to put together the text that is to be summarize, since it provides means to strip away any unwanted content that is not part of the text to be summarized.
Claims (7, 14 and 20), are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11017179 in view of Luo et al. (US 20170277668).
In regards to claims (7, 14 and 20), Pat ‘179 doesn’t specifically teach wherein the determining, the extracting, the concatenating, and the calling are performed by an extension of a browser application through which the document is displayed on the user device.
Luo teaches wherein the determining, the extracting, the concatenating, and the calling are performed by an extension of a browser application through which the document is displayed on the user device (see para 81: teaches browser extension associated to summarization).
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 Pat ‘179 with Luo, since it provides means to facilitate the summarization process by employing extensions that can be added to browsers that do not originally have the ability to generate a summary.
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 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180150905), in view of Wu (US 20200320116) and Luo et al. (US 20170277668).
In regards to claims (1, 8 and 15), Lee teaches a method, comprising: receiving, by a user device, an instruction to summarize a document displayed on the user device (see at least para 34, 55: input to summarize content, see at least para 39, 55, 115-116, 118-128, content displayed to be summarized); responsive to the instruction, determining, by the user device, main content of the document displayed on the user device; extracting, by the user device, texts from the main content (see at least para 102-103, 118-128: a summarization unit, it teaches determine the main content selected for summarization); calling, by the user device, an artificial intelligence (AI) platform with the text block and a summarization range (see FIG. 11, abstract and at least para 3, 9, 102-104, 118-128, 149; the summarization unit, the process combines the text to be summarize. Also, para 35, 115-116, 149-150, 170-174: content range and summarizing the content), wherein the AI platform processes the text block according to the summarization range and produces a summary of the text block in the summarization range; receiving, by the user device, the summary of the text block in the summarization range; and displaying, by the user device, the summary of the text block in the summarization range in context of the document displayed on the user device (see fig. 7A-B, 9A-B and at least para 149-152, 170-174; teaches data summarization model and returning and displaying the summarized content).
Lee doesn’t specifically teach concatenating, by the user device, the texts thus extracted into a text block.
Luo teaches concatenating, by the user device, the texts thus extracted into a text block (see at least para 146; combining text that is to be summarized. Combines text that may have headers or images in between, thus only leaving the text that is going to be summarize),
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 Luo with the teachings of Lee to put together the text that is to be summarize, since it provides means to strip away any unwanted content that is not part of the text to be summarized.
Lee doesn’t specifically teach the AI produces a sentiment of the text block; receiving, by the user device, the sentiment of the text block; and displaying, by the user device, the sentiment of the text block.
Wu teaches the AI produces a sentiment of the text block; receiving, by the user device, the sentiment of the text block; and displaying, by the user device, the sentiment of the text block (see para 114, 156 and claim 1; an AI with a sentiment analyzer and a generating a summary using the document text and the emotion information).
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 Wu with the teachings of Lee in order to have an AI (neural network) with a sentiment analyzer of sentiment and summarizer incorporated to the summarizer of Lee, since it provides means to enhance and makes more accurate and engaging the information that is provided by the system, thus improving the experience of the user with the system.
In regards to claims (2, 9 and 16), Lee teaches wherein the document is displayed in a web page and wherein the determining the main content of the document displayed on the user device comprises examining source code of the web page and using tags in the source code to identify text nodes in the source code (see Lee at least para 119-121: analyses the source code. On para 102-103, 118-128: a summarization unit, it teaches determine the main content selected for summarization).
In regards to claims (3, 10 and 17), Lee teaches wherein the extracting the texts from the main content comprises parsing the text nodes and extracting the texts from the text nodes (see Lee at least para 119-121: it analyses the source code of the content to obtain the text that will be summarize).
In regards to claims (5 and 12) Lee teaches wherein the user device comprises an agent of the AI platform and wherein the determining, the extracting, and the calling are performed by the agent of the AI platform (see FIG. 11, abstract and at least para 3, 9, 102-104, 118-128, 149, 153-160; the summarization unit, the process obtains the selected content text and the summarization model processes and combines the text and generates the summary).
Lee doesn’t specifically teach concatenating.
Luo teaches concatenating (see at least para 146; combining text that is to be summarized. Combines text that may have headers or images in between, thus only leaving the text that is going to be summarize).
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 Luo with the teachings of Lee to put together the text that is to be summarize, since it provides means to strip away any unwanted content that is not part of the text to be summarized.
In regards to claims (6 and 13), Lee teaches wherein the agent operates independently of any application through which the document is displayed on the user device (see para 153-160: working and processing independently and sends the summary to the application).
In regards to claims (7, 14 and 20), Lee doesn’t specifically teach wherein the determining, the extracting, the concatenating, and the calling are performed by an extension of a browser application through which the document is displayed on the user device.
Luo teaches wherein the determining, the extracting, the concatenating, and the calling are performed by an extension of a browser application through which the document is displayed on the user device (see para 81: teaches browser extension associated to summarization).
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 Luo with the teachings of Lee to use an a browser extension, since it provides means to facilitate the summarization process by employing extensions that can be added to browsers that do not originally have the ability to generate a summary.
In regards to claim 19, Lee teaches wherein the user device comprises an agent of the AI platform, wherein the determining, the extracting, and the calling are performed by the agent of the AI platform (see FIG. 11, abstract and at least para 3, 9, 102-104, 118-128, 149, 153-160; the summarization unit, the process obtains the selected content text and the summarization model processes and combines the text and generates the summary), and wherein the agent operates independently of any application through which the document is displayed on the user device (see para 153-160: working and processing independently and sends the summary to the application).
Lee doesn’t specifically teach concatenating.
Luo teaches concatenating (see at least para 146; combining text that is to be summarized. Combines text that may have headers or images in between, thus only leaving the text that is going to be summarize).
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 Luo with the teachings of Lee to put together the text that is to be summarize, since it provides means to strip away any unwanted content that is not part of the text to be summarized.
Claims (4, 11 and 18) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Wu and Luo as applied to claims above, and further in view of Fukatsu et al. (US 20040141016).
In regards to claims (4, 11 and 18), Lee doesn’t specifically teach wherein displaying the sentiment of the text block and the summary of the text block in the summarization range in context of the document comprises generating a window or page that overlays a portion of the document displayed on the user device.
Fukatsu teaches wherein displaying the sentiment of the text block and the summary of the text block in the summarization range in context of the document comprises generating a window or page that overlays a portion of the document displayed on the user device (see para 11: teaches using window interface to display summary or preview of content).
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 Fukatsu with the teachings of Lee in order to have an AI (neural network) with a sentiment analyzer of sentiment and summarizer incorporated to the summarizer of Lee, since it provides means to facilitated the display of the summary information in association with the original content/text.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30am-5:30pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights