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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/19/26 has been entered.
In amendments dated 2/19/26, Applicant amended claims 1, 6, 8-10, 12-13, and 20, canceled no claims, and added no new claims. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informality: the amended language begins “The method of claims [[1]1” which is unclear. Examiner notes the earlier version of claim 12 from amendments dated 8/20/95 depended on claim 1 so Examiner construes the currently amended claim 12 to depend on claim 11.
Obviousness Type 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 1-5, 7-9, 11, and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, and 13-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,050,658 in view of Rathod (US 20220179665). See chart below. With respect to claims 1 and 13, the ‘658 patent teaches displaying a content item creation interface via a client device; receiving, via the content item creation interface, one or more user interactions; determining a similarity profile indicative of similarity scores associated with similarities between terms of the set of terms; determining, based upon the similarity profile, relevance scores associated with the set of terms; selecting, based upon the relevance scores, one or more search terms from among the set of terms; performing, based upon the one or more search terms, an image search using an image database; displaying, via the content item creation interface, a set of search results of the image search; receiving, via the content item creation interface, a selection of an image of a plurality of images in the set of search results; responsive to the selection of the image via the content item creation interface, combining at least a portion of the image with a first set of content item text to generate a content item; and after the generation of the content item using the content item creation interface, presenting the generated content item to one or more client devices. The ‘658 patent claims do not recite responsive to the one or more user interactions via the content item creation interface, determining a set of content items determined to be similar to content item text associated with the one or more user interactions; determining one or more terms from the content item text; determining one or more additional terms from the set of content items, wherein the one or more additional terms comprise at least one of one or more text-based terms from text of the set of content items or one or more image-based terms from one or more images of the set of content items; and determining a set of terms comprising both (i) the one or more terms from the content item text and (ii) the one or more additional terms from the set of content items. Rathod teaches these things: responsive to the one or more user interactions via the content item creation interface, determining a set of content items determined to be similar to content item text associated with the one or more user interactions (paragraph 0325 user interactions on interface creating a story with content items, terms); determining one or more terms from the content item text (paragraph 0325 figure 9, determining object keywords 960 for objects); determining one or more additional terms from the set of content items, wherein the one or more additional terms comprise at least one of one or more text-based terms from text of the set of content items or one or more image-based terms from one or more images of the set of content items (paragraph 0325 figure 9, additional keywords 955, text-based terms for items); and determining a set of terms comprising both (i) the one or more terms from the content item text and (ii) the one or more additional terms from the set of content items (paragraph 0325 figure 9, keywords 960 and 955 making a set of terms). It would have been obvious to have combined the content item creation interface functionality of content items and terms and additional terms in Rathod with the content item creation interface techniques claimed in the ‘658 patent to provide additional keywords for item lookup, making for more complete content items created.
With respect to claim 20, the ‘658 patent teaches displaying a content item creation interface via a client device; receiving, via the content item creation interface, a first set of content item text; selecting, based upon the first set of content item text and a plurality of sets of content item text associated with a plurality of content items, a set of content items from among the plurality of content items; determining, based upon the first set of content item text and the one or more additional terms, a set of terms; determining embedding-based representations, of the set of terms, comprising: a first embedding-based representation of a first term of the set of terms; a second embedding-based representation of a second term of the set of terms; and a third embedding-based representation of a third term of the set of terms; determining a first measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the second embedding-based representation; determining a second measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the third embedding-based representation; determining, based upon the first measure of similarity and the second measure of similarity, a similarity profile indicative of similarity scores associated with similarities between terms of the set of terms; and displaying content via the content item creation interface based upon the similarity profile. The ‘658 patent claims do not recite selecting, based upon the first set of content item text and a plurality of sets of content item text associated with a plurality of content items, a set of content items from among the plurality of content items, wherein the plurality of content items comprise one or more additional terms from the set of content items, wherein the one or more additional terms comprise at least one of one or more text-based terms from text of the set of content items or one or more image-based terms from one or more images of the set of content items [emphasis added]. Rathod teaches these things: selecting, based upon the first set of content item text and a plurality of sets of content item text associated with a plurality of content items, a set of content items from among the plurality of content items, wherein the plurality of content items comprise one or more additional terms from the set of content items (paragraph 0325 figure 9, additional keywords 955, text-based terms for items), wherein the one or more additional terms comprise at least one of one or more text-based terms from text of the set of content items or one or more image-based terms from one or more images of the set of content items (paragraph 0325 figure 9, object keywords 960 for objects and additional keywords 955 making a set of terms). It would have been obvious to have combined the content item creation interface functionality of content items and terms and additional terms in Rathod with the content item creation interface techniques claimed in the ‘658 patent to provide additional keywords for item lookup, making for more complete content items created.
Instant application claim
‘658 patent claim in view of Rathod
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
7
7
8
8
9
9
11
11
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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 mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 13 each recites responsive to the one or more user interactions via the content item creation interface, determining a set of content items determined to be similar to content item text associated with the one or more user interactions; determining one or more terms from the content item text; determining one or more additional terms from the set of content items, wherein the one or more additional terms comprise at least one of one or more text-based terms from text of the set of content items or one or more image-based terms from one or more images of the set of content items; determining a set of terms comprising both (i) the one or more terms from the content item text and (ii) the one or more additional terms from the set of content items;
determining a similarity profile indicative of similarity scores associated with similarities between terms of the set of terms; determining, based upon the similarity profile, relevance scores associated with the set of terms; selecting, based upon the relevance scores, one or more search terms from among the set of terms; performing, based upon the one or more search terms, an image search using an image database; and responsive to the selection of the image via the content item creation interface, combining at least a portion of the image with a first set of content item text to generate a content item. Determining a set of content items that are determined to be similar to content item text is recited broadly and is evaluating and a mental process. Determining one or more terms, determining one or more additional terms, determining a set of terms, determining a similarity profile, and determining relevance scores are each recited broadly and involve evaluating and are mental processes. Selecting one or more search terms and performing an image search each involve evaluating and are mental processes. Combining at least a portion of an image with a set of content item text is recited broadly and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claim 13 also recites determining a target audience for a content item which is evaluating and a mental process. Each claim recites additional elements of receiving, via the content item creation interface, one or more user interactions; and receiving, via the content item creation interface, a selection of an image of a plurality of images in the set of search results, which are each input steps and insignificant extra-solution activity, and displaying a content item creation interface via a client device; and presenting the generated content item to one or more client devices, which are each output steps and also insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 13 recites a processor and memory comprising processor-executable instructions, which are generic components of a computer. Examiner notes specification paragraph 0041 states finding an image for inclusion in a content item may be difficult, and paragraph 0042 states “by determining and using the additional terms (e.g., image-based terms and/or text-based terms) from the set of content items to generate the image search query, the image search query may be generated with increased accuracy.” Examiner notes the claims now recite determining additional terms but said determining steps are recited broadly. Examiner does not see how the invention determining additional terms provides improvements to generate a search query with increased accuracy. Thus the claim steps still do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, the input steps and output steps are each recited broadly and amount to receiving and sending data across a network per specification paragraph 0027 and figure 1 components 106 and 108, which are routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The processor and memory comprising processor-executable instructions, are still generic components of a computer. Therefore the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Independent claim 20 recites selecting, based upon the first set of content item text and a plurality of sets of content item text associated with a plurality of content items, a set of content items from among the plurality of content items, wherein the plurality of content items comprise one or more additional terms from the set of content items, wherein the one or more additional terms comprise at least one of one or more text-based terms from text of the set of content items or one or more image-based terms from one or more images of the set of content items; determining, based upon the first set of content item text and the one or more additional terms, a set of terms; determining embedding-based representations, of the set of terms, comprising: a first embedding-based representation of a first term of the set of terms; a second embedding-based representation of a second term of the set of terms; and a third embedding-based representation of a third term of the set of terms; determining a first measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the second embedding-based representation; determining a second measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the third embedding-based representation; determining, based upon the first measure of similarity and the second measure of similarity, a similarity profile indicative of similarity scores associated with similarities between terms of the set of terms. Selecting a set of content items, determining one or more additional terms, determining embedding-based representations, determining a first measure of similarity, determining a second measure of similarity, and determining a similarity profile are each recited broadly and involve evaluating and thus are mental processes. This claim recites additional elements of receiving, via the content item creation interface, a first set of content item text, which is an input step and insignificant extra-solution activity; and displaying a content item creation interface via a client device; and displaying content via the content item creation interface based upon the similarity profile, which are each output steps and also insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 20 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium which is a generic component of a computer. Examiner notes the specification recites problems in the technology as described in paragraphs 0041 and 0042 above and also notes the determining of additional terms without reciting the specific improvements of the invention that lead to generating search queries with increased accuracy. While claim 20 recites embedding-based representations of the set of terms and measures of similarity using said embedding-based representations, Examiner did not see discussion in the specification of how this specifically leads to an improvement. Thus Thus the claim steps still do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, the input steps and output steps are each recited broadly and amount to receiving and sending data across a network per specification paragraph 0027 and figure 1 components 106 and 108, which are routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The processor and memory comprising processor-executable instructions, are still generic components of a computer. Therefore the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Claims 2 and 14 each recites determining, based upon the first set of content item text and a plurality of sets of content item text associated with a plurality of content items, a plurality of similarity scores associated with the plurality of sets of content item text, wherein: the plurality of sets of content item text comprises a second set of content item text of a first content item of the plurality of content items; and a first similarity score of the plurality of similarity scores is associated with a similarity between the first set of content item text and the second set of content item text (determining is recited broadly and a mental process); and selecting a set of content items from among the plurality of content items based upon the plurality of similarity scores (selecting is evaluating and a mental process). Claims 3 and 15 each recites selecting the set of content items from among the plurality of content items is based upon a determination that the set of content items are associated with highest similarity scores of the plurality of similarity scores (determining is recited broadly and a mental process). Claim 4 recites determining a first embedding-based representation of the first set of content item text, wherein the determining the plurality of similarity scores comprises determining the first similarity score based upon the first embedding-based representation and a second embedding-based representation of the second set of content item text of the first content item (determining is recited broadly and a mental process).
Claim 5 recites the image search is performed automatically and without requiring manual entry of a search query by a user after the selecting the one or more search terms (performing a search is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 6 recites wherein the one or more search terms are automatically generated from the set of terms without requiring manual entry of the one or more search terms as part of a search query by a user, thereby improving identification of images relevant to the content item text content item creation (generating search terms is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claims 7 and 18 each recites translating the first set of content item text in a first language to a translated set of content item text in a second language (translating content item text is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and analyzing the translated set of content item text to identify one or more terms in the translated set of content item text, wherein the one or more terms are included in the set of terms (analyzing content item text is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Claims 8 and 19 each recites analyzing an image of a first content item of the set of content items to determine one or more object terms of one or more objects in the image, wherein the one or more object terms are included in the set of terms (analyzing an image is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claims 9 and 19 each recites analyzing sets of content item text associated with content items of the set of content items to identify one or more terms in the sets of content item text, wherein the one or more terms are included in the set of terms (analyzing content items is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 10 recites determining, by generating a first embedding-based representation of the content item text and a plurality of embedding-based representations respectively corresponding to a plurality of stored content items, and computing similarity scores between the first embedding-based representation and the plurality of embedding-based representations using a cosine similarity measure, the set of content items based upon the similarity scores (determining a set of content items by generating an embedding-based representation and computing similarity scores is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Claim 11 recites determining embedding-based representations, of the set of terms, comprising: a first embedding-based representation of a first term of the set of terms; a second embedding-based representation of a second term of the set of terms; and a third embedding-based representation of a third term of the set of terms; determining a first measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the second embedding-based representation; and determining a second measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the third embedding-based representation (determining embedding-based representations and measures of similarity are each recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 12 recites extracting one or more text-based terms from content item text of the set of content items (extracting terms is recited and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and performing object detection on one or more images of the set of content items to identify one or more image-based terms associated with detected objects (detecting objects is recited and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 16 recites determining embedding-based representations of the set of terms, wherein the similarity scores indicated by the similarity profile are based upon the embedding-based representations (determining is recited broadly and a mental process). Claim 17 recites analyzing the first set of content item text to identify one or more terms in the first set of content item text, wherein the one or more terms are included in the set of terms (analyzing a content item is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 1, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rathod (US 20220179665).
With respect to claims 1 and 13, Rathod teaches:
displaying a content item creation interface via a client device (paragraph 0054 interface for creating publication or advertisement content items);
receiving, via the content item creation interface, one or more user interactions (paragraph 0054 users can scan objects with criteria associated with advertisements (user interactions, paragraph 0325 create a story with content items, terms (user interactions figures 9-13)));
responsive to the one or more user interactions via the content item creation interface, determining a set of content items determined to be similar to content item text associated with the one or more user interactions (paragraph 0325 create a story with content items, terms (user interactions figures 9-13)));
determining one or more terms from the content item text (paragraph 0325 figure 9, object keywords 960 for objects);
determining one or more additional terms from the set of content items, wherein the one or more additional terms comprise at least one of one or more text-based terms from text of the set of content items or one or more image-based terms from one or more images of the set of content items (paragraph 0325 figure 9, additional keywords 955, text-based terms for items);
determining a set of terms comprising both (i) the one or more terms from the content item text and (ii) the one or more additional terms from the set of content items (paragraph 0325 figure 9, set of terms from keywords 960, additional terms 955);
determining a similarity profile indicative of similarity scores associated with similarities between terms of the set of terms (paragraph 0241 users store images, related keywords (similar so scored as similar) in a similarity profile);
determining, based upon the similarity profile, relevance scores associated with the set of terms (paragraph 0241 search with terms for media, contents, also paragraph 0325 figure 10);
selecting, based upon the relevance scores, one or more search terms from among the set of terms (paragraph 0241 search with terms for media, contents, also paragraph 0325 figure 10);
performing, based upon the one or more search terms, an image search using an image database (paragraphs 0241, 0325 search and match visual media items);
displaying, via the content item creation interface, a set of search results of the image search (paragraph 0328 figure 11(A), search for visual media items);
receiving, via the content item creation interface, a selection of an image of a plurality of images in the set of search results (paragraph 0330 figure 12 users select visual media items at user device);
responsive to the selection of the image via the content item creation interface, combining at least a portion of the image with a first set of content item text to generate a content item (paragraph 0330 figure 12, user select keywords, displayed example 1209, 1223 (combining)); and
after the generation of the content item using the content item creation interface, presenting the generated content item to one or more client devices (paragraph 0330 figure 12 displayed example 1209, 1223, also paragraph 0331 identify keywords matches with visual media items in figure 12B).
With respect to claim 13, Rathod teaches a processor and a memory (paragraph 0345 server module with processor, memory).
With respect to claim 5, Rathod teaches the image search is performed automatically and without requiring manual entry of a search query by a user after the selecting the one or more search terms (paragraph 0801 example of user entering “shops+bags,” system automatically searches “Phoenix+mall+shops+bags”).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
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 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod in view of Zhang et al US 20120072220), hereafter Zhang.
With respect to claim 20, Rathod teaches:
displaying a content item creation interface via a client device (paragraph 0054 interface for creating publication or advertisement content items);
receiving, via the content item creation interface, a first set of content item text paragraph 0325 create a story with content items, terms (user interactions figures 9-13));
selecting, based upon the first set of content item text and a plurality of sets of content item text associated with a plurality of content items, a set of content items from among the plurality of content items, wherein the plurality of content items comprise one or more additional terms from the set of content items, wherein the one or more additional terms comprise at least one of one or more text-based terms from text of the set of content items or one or more image-based terms from one or more images of the set of content items (paragraph 0325 create a story with content items, terms (user interactions figures 9-13)), paragraph 0325 figure 9, object keywords 960 for objects, paragraph 0325 figure 9, additional keywords 955, text-based terms for items);
determining, based upon the first set of content item text and the one or more additional terms, a set of terms (paragraph 0325 figure 9, set of terms from keywords 960, additional terms 955);
determining, based upon the first measure of similarity and the second measure of similarity, a similarity profile indicative of similarity scores associated with similarities between terms of the set of terms (paragraph 0241 search with terms for media, contents, also paragraph 0325 figure 10); and
displaying content via the content item creation interface based upon the similarity profile (paragraph 0330 figure 12 displayed example 1209, 1223, also paragraph 0331 identify keywords matches with visual media items in figure 12B).
Rathod does not teach:
determining embedding-based representations, of the set of terms, comprising:
a first embedding-based representation of a first term of the set of terms;
a second embedding-based representation of a second term of the set of terms; and
a third embedding-based representation of a third term of the set of terms;
determining a first measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the second embedding-based representation;
determining a second measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the third embedding-based representation;
Zhang teaches these things:
determining embedding-based representations, of the set of terms, comprising:
a first embedding-based representation of a first term of the set of terms (paragraph 0101 determining weight vector of keywords in a text set (terms));
a second embedding-based representation of a second term of the set of terms (repetition of paragraph 0101 determining weight vector of keywords in a text set (terms)); and
a third embedding-based representation of a third term of the set of terms (repetition of paragraph 0101 determining weight vector of keywords in a text set (terms));
determining a first measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the second embedding-based representation (paragraph 0050 determine similarity of weight vectors between text sets);
determining a second measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the third embedding-based representation (repetition of paragraph 0050 determine similarity of weight vectors between text sets);
It would have been obvious to have combined the functions of generating embedding-based representations of terms and determining measures of similarity between said embedding-based representations in Zhang with the content item creation techniques in Rathod as using vectors allows for more accurate similarity measurements between terms in text sets.
With respect to claim 20, Rathod also teaches a non-transitory machine readable medium (paragraph 0153 computer-readable medium containing instructions for invention).
With respect to claim 11, all the limitations in claim 1 are addressed by Rathod above. Rathod does not teach determining embedding-based representations, of the set of terms, comprising: a first embedding-based representation of a first term of the set of terms; a second embedding-based representation of a second term of the set of terms; and a third embedding-based representation of a third term of the set of terms; determining a first measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the second embedding-based representation; and determining a second measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the third embedding-based representation.
Zhang teaches these things:
determining embedding-based representations, of the set of terms, comprising:
a first embedding-based representation of a first term of the set of terms (paragraph 0101 determining weight vector of keywords in a text set (terms));
a second embedding-based representation of a second term of the set of terms (repetition of paragraph 0101 determining weight vector of keywords in a text set (terms)); and
a third embedding-based representation of a third term of the set of terms (repetition of paragraph 0101 determining weight vector of keywords in a text set (terms));
determining a first measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the second embedding-based representation (paragraph 0050 determine similarity of weight vectors between text sets); and
determining a second measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the third embedding-based representation (repetition of paragraph 0050 determine similarity of weight vectors between text sets).
Claims 7, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod in view of Berg et a (US 20200380320), hereafter Berg.
With respect to claims 7 and 18, all the imitations in claims 1 and 13 are addressed by Rathod above. Rathod does not teach:
translating the first set of content item text in a first language to a translated set of content item text in a second language; and
analyzing the translated set of content item text to identify one or more terms in the translated set of content item text, wherein the one or more terms are included in the set of terms.
Berg teaches these things:
translating the first set of content item text in a first language to a translated set of content item text in a second language (paragraph 0096 keyword units translating keywords into a second language such as German); and
analyzing the translated set of content item text to identify one or more terms in the translated set of content item text, wherein the one or more terms are included in the set of terms (identify terms in second language).
It would have been obvious to have combined this translating function in Berg with the content item creation techniques in Rathod to make the creation interface in Rathod more user-friendly.
It would have been obvious to have combined the functions of generating embedding-based representations of terms and determining measures of similarity between said embedding-based representations in Zhang with the content item creation techniques in Rathod as using vectors allows for more accurate similarity measurements between terms in text sets.
With respect to claim 10, all the imitations in claims 1 and 13 are addressed by Rathod above. Rathod does not teach determining, by generating a first embedding-based representation of the content item text and a plurality of embedding-based representations respectively corresponding to a plurality of stored content items, and computing similarity scores between the first embedding-based representation and the plurality of embedding-based representations using a cosine similarity measure, the set of content items based upon the similarity scores.
Zhang teaches this in converting query words into vectors and category words into vectors and using a cosine similarity measure as a vector similarity measure (paragraphs 0021-0022). It would have been obvious to have combined the function of determining using embedding-based representations of content items and computing similarity scores using a cosine similarity measure in Zhang with the content item creation techniques in Rathod to provide a more useful similarity of a normalized measure (values between 0-1) like cosine similarity for other types of quantities like queries.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod and Zhang in further view of Choi (AU 2018301111).
With respect to claim 12, all the imitations in claims 1 and 11 are addressed by Rathod and Zhang above. The combination of Rathod and Zhang does not teach:
extracting one or more text-based terms from content item text of the set of content items; and
performing object detection on one or more images of the set of content items to identify one or more image-based terms associated with detected objects.
Choi teaches these things:
extracting one or more text-based terms from content item text of the set of content items (paragraph [13] identifying text terms from a content item); and
performing object detection on one or more images of the set of content items to identify one or more image-based terms associated with detected objects (paragraph [13] use an object recognition model on a selected image of a content item, identify a word related to the object in the selected image).
It would have been obvious to have combined this function of object detection in an image in Choi with the content item creation techniques in Rathod to assist a user in searching an image.
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding objections to claims 1 and 6 for antecedent basis of “a content item creation interface,” in view of amendments in 1 and removing said language in claim 6, these objections are withdrawn. Regarding objection to claim 13 for antecedent basis of “first set of text,” in view of amendment reciting “a first set of text” this objection is withdrawn. Regarding obviousness type double patenting rejections on claims 1-20 over claims 1-20 of US Patent 12,050,658, in view of amendments Examiner maintains double patenting rejections on claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, and 13-20 in view of Rathod. Regarding rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. On pages 10-11 of his Remarks Applicant noted support for the amendments to claims 1, 13, and 20 in specification paragraphs 0041-0042. Examiner noted in his rejections above that the amended limitations are broad and do not recite the specific inventive details that show how determining additional terms enable search queries to be more accurate. Thus Examiner believes these claims do not recite a practical application per MPEP 2106.04(d) or significantly more than the recited mental processes per MPEP 2106.05(a).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571 270-5626. 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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 4/17/26
Prosecution Insights