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 .
Status of Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the amendments filed by the applicant on 20 April 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending, including amendments to claims 1-3, 6-13, and 15-20, and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Answer to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicants’ arguments filed 20 April 2026, on pages 8-10, with regards to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants’ arguments, asserting that claims 1 and 11, which were found to be directed to abstract ideas without significantly more, instead amount to an inventive concept resolving a particular internet-centric problem such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas, are not persuasive. The applicants’ arguments rely on Example 2, i.e. the DDR Holdings case, where the applicant forces similarity through these amendments that merely add terms like “website,” moving the social networking service to the internet as a website versus the specification disclosed interchangeable nature of said service, accessible in numerous manners. Further, the amended claims modify “content" to now be an “internet article.” Both amendments, proliferated through the independent and depending claims, were made with a pretextual drive, an attempt to force the claims in a direction that vaguely relates to the claims of DDR Holdings from the USPTO abstract idea example 2. The similarities are based on vocabulary only, and do not extend to the contextual nature of the claim language. DDR Holdings changed the way that websites used external data in a non-abstract way. The instant claims merely apply the additional elements as tools to implement the instructions of the claims.
The applicants’ arguments, on page 10, asserting that the abstract idea of finding alternative articles is practically implemented in a non-conventional and non generic way, even if the steps used well-known components, are Moot. First, the Examiner did not identify any claim elements as conventional, generic, or well-known. Such assertions would have been addressed under MPEP 2106.05(d), i.e. well-understood, routine or conventional (WURC), or under MPEP 2106.05 (g), e.g. insignificant extra solution activity. Therefore, these arguments are not probative nor germane to the rejections made.
The arguments, also on page 10, asserting new additional elements, fails to address the rejection made by the Examiner and is therefore not probative to the rejection and not germane to the conversation. The mere inclusion of “website,” “embedded,” internet article,” and “internet search” only in claim 11, do not automatically force the identification of one claim set with another claim set, without the appropriate analyses. In this case, the arguments, that the amended claims which now include the aforementioned “words,” transmute limitations like sending and receiving data, e.g. receiving a user’s, user interface selection of data, comprising embedded links, from the category of non-abstract ideas that are not disclosed as the core of the invention and thus are do not amount to an inventive concept or significantly more, into additional elements that move the claims to a patentable state, are not persuasive.
Further, the mere transmutation of the social networking service to a website, does not import the idea of a problem rooted in computer technology that overcomes a networking issue like DDR Holdings. The other two elements that the applicant is attempting to divert from abstract ideas, without analyses, merely based on adding keywords to the existing claims, are: determining the data access level of a user, and identifying an alternative article. These abstract ideas cannot be transmuted into additional elements, merely by adding non-functional descriptive information, i.e. the data that the user is attempting to access, is an internet article, or by adding intended results data, e.g. wherein the alternative article is identified using an internet search from claim 11 only. The transmutation of these limitations from reciting abstract ideas, to additional elements, without addressing the change in the arguments, is not probative nor germane, as it fails to show how the Examiner may have erred and sufficient evidence , rules, and appropriate supporting analyses for the conclusions made. In this case, these three limitations will not be changed to fit the narrative as there is no evidence to support transmuting the receiving data, determining access level, and identifying alternative data limitations into the argued additional elements category.
Again, the mere transmutation of the claims to include the above words, does not transmute claim language into additional elements. That is, the elements of receiving data, determining user access level, and identifying alternative data, are not additional elements due to the words supplemented in the claims. Further, the applicants’ arguments that the claims are rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks, such that the instant claims and the claims of DDR Holdings may be analyzed using the same/similar theoretical practice, are Moot. The problems of the instant claims are not rooted in technology, but are a mere application of technological environment, applying or using the abstract ideas by generally linking them to the use of the technological environments of the identified additional elements, addressed in the full 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection below, such that the claims are no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exceptions.
Since these three limitations are not identified additional elements, the argument that the “finding alternative articles” is an abstract idea that is practically implemented when an intended article is unavailable, is not persuasive. As discussed above, the applicant asserts that “identifying an alternative article” is both an additional element and an abstract idea. An additional element must be an element that is not identified as an or as part of an abstract idea. That is, an abstract idea cannot also be an additional element at the same time. Further, an element cannot be used to indicate the practical application of itself. Therefore, this argument is Moot, as identifying alternative articles cannot be used to practically implement finding alternative articles because they are the same exact limitation.
Comparing the findings of DDR Holdings, disclosing that the claims have an inventive concept because they implement the internet, like DDR Holdings, through embedded links to posts on websites, determining user access levels, only because the data is an internet article, and identifying alternative articles, based on intended results, i.e. an internet search that is not positively recited, are not probative. DDR Holdings changed the way that retailers displayed third party data, using an alternate method that imported the data and displayed it in a manner that appeared to keep the consumer in the web server from which the data was found, in order to retain website visitors. The mere similarity of the instant claims because, like DDR Holdings, the claims access websites, use links, selections, embedding, internet search and article, are not enough for the Examiner to draw the same conclusions, because the applicant did not present analyses that included evidence showing the congruence. The arguments merely submit a general similarity due to added vocabulary that is non-consequential to the broadest reasonable interpretation based on the plain meaning of the claims. That is, the added verbiage made no alterations to how the claims perform the limitations, or to the mechanisms that are implemented to perform the claim limitations, and made no significant alteration to the claims that make them comparable to DDR Holdings claims or the findings and analyses from Example 2.
Please find the updated 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection below, reflecting the amendments to the claim language.
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is Maintained.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicants’ arguments filed 20 April 2026, on page 10, with regards to 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the applicants’ arguments, asserting that neither Godor nor Ghoshal disclose or teach the identifying alternative article limitation or the providing alternative data for consumption, are not persuasive. The applicants’ assertion that “the office action acknowledges that Godor does not disclose ‘identifying alternative content, wherein the alternative content is identified based on similarity to the shared content" is Moot. The Office action, in fact, asserts that Godor discloses the following limitations: “based at least in part on determining that the device associated with the user account has limited access to the shared content, identifying alternative content, wherein the alternative content is identified based on similarity to the shared content; [0048] (in response to a limited access assignment to user account, the system retrieves and provisions alternative content that matches the original content, i.e. the alternative content is similar to the original content).
Since Godor does partially disclose the feature, the office action supplements the feature with reliance on the teachings of Ghoshal for the following part of the limitation, “identifying alternative content, wherein the alternative content is identified based on similarity to the shared content; [0067] (alternative content is identified based on similarity to original shared content).” The Examiner respectfully asserts that the convention of the office action may seem to negate itself when the Examiner implements the phrasing, “Where Godor does not disclose, Ghoshal teaches:.” This is not to say that the elements are not at all in the first prior art document, but that the elements, especially when included in both citation sections, are supplemented such that every element is found in the combined prior art, of which a person having ordinary skill in the art would have identified, with an appropriate reason to combine, before the effective filing date. That is, both Godor and Ghoshal, together, are obvious over the instant claim limitations according to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The further arguments of the applicant, asserting that both Godor and Ghoshal, either alone or in combination, are silent to “replacing a selected unavailable article in an embedded link post with an available article that is similar in topic,” are both not persuasive and not germane to the discussion. These assertions are not germane to the subject of 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections because the arguments present an altered sentence to represent a much differently presented claim limitation. That is, the claim limitations do not recite all of the limitations that the applicant argues in that quoted sentence. The claim is clearly disclosed in the presented citations: from Godor: access to the alternative content; and providing the alternative content for consumption via the device associated with the user account; [0125] (related content is provided to the user) [0174] (content data is sent to the user device via their account on a social media service); and from Ghoshal: access to the alternative content; and providing the alternative content for consumption via the device associated with the user account; [0125] (related content is provided to the user) [0174] (content data is sent to the user device via their account on a social media service). Combined, along with the rationale to combine, the Examiner asserts that this limitation, as positively recited, is found to be obvious over the combination of prior art disclosures.
Please find the updated 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections below, reflecting the amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is Maintained.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims
Regarding Claims 1 and 11: These claims recite determining limited access to shared data, based on determining limited access, identifying alternative data based on similarity to shared data, and determining limited access to alternative data, which are abstract ideas in the category of mental processes including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Insofar as the claims recite receive user interface selection data to access a post with an embedded link to access shared data and providing alternate content for consumption, the specification does not reveal advances in accessing or providing data, where accessing and providing data is akin it sending, receiving, viewing, and transmitting.
The additional computing elements recited in claims 1 and 11 are the network, device, and in claim 11 a system and control circuitry. The claims each recite the additional elements of a user account and a social networking service. The specification discloses in ¶ [0063], that “client devices may operate in cloud computing environment to access cloud services,” i.e. “various types of computing services for content sharing, storage or distribution (e.g., video sharing sites or social networking sites),” where the social networking sites are further disclosed in the background ¶ [100021] as social media network where “Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter), LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok, and other services include links for content on which they are commenting and/or sharing.” The user accounts are disclosed in the specification I i.e. the user account is a database of social media posted events and user data, and the social media network are software services, i.e. software through which the instructions of the method of claim 1, or of the control circuitry of claim 11 are implemented. The remaining elements are disclosed in ¶’s [0040]-[0054] as general-purpose computing structures. Each element is disclosed at a high level of generality. The claims are merely instructions to implement the abstract ideas using the computing structures and software services as tools, e.g. the claims add the words “apply it” with the abstract ideas.
The claim recites additional elements that are merely characterizations of data, i.e. non-functional descriptive information limitations that do are not abstract ideas, do not carry patentable weight, and cannot be relied on to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims and specification are focused on the steps taken, i.e. merely executing instructions via computing structures and software services in a method in claim 1, or on general purpose computing structures and software services in a system of claim 11, that are incidental or token additions to the claim, that do not alter or affect how the steps of determining, identifying, or providing are performed (MPEP 2015.06(h)) and (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims as a whole, while looking at the additional elements individually and as a combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: This analysis for Step 2B is commensurate with the analysis above for step 2A, Prong 2. Therefore, for the same reasons disclosed above, the additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, when taken individually and in combination, also do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the identified abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05). The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent Claims
Regarding Claims 2 and 12: These claims further recite the same abstract ideas and additional elements as the independent claims above, the claims recite abstract ideas of mental processes, with the nearly the same analyses. Claims 2 and 12 recite identifying the alternative articles and determining that the data can be accessed by any user, which are abstract ideas in the category of mental processes. There are no additional elements in addition to those recited in the independent claims for claim 2. Therefore, claim 2 cannot be integrated into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Claim 12 recites the control circuitry as an additional element, which is a general-purpose computing structure, merely applied as a tool to implement the abstract idea, i.e. apply it. Therefore, the additional element in claim 12 is not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, for the same reasons, the additional element in claim 12 is not enough to amount to significantly more than he abstract idea.
Regarding claims 3-5, 10, 13-15, and 20: These claims do not recite any abstract ideas, as they merely add, in claims 3 and 13: an identifying alternative articles limitation where the articles are identified by a user account selection, in claims 4 and 14: a receiving notification limitation, and in claims 5 and 15: receiving the selection of the alternative articles as a subset of a plurality alternate article options, where the specification does not reveal advances to selecting, sending or receiving data. In claims 10 and 20, the claim merely refines the format of the alternative content, defining different types of data like PDF, document, images, video, (AI generated summary, or text-to-voice generated audio file types, which are also not abstract ideas. Since there are no abstract ideas, the additional elements cannot be indicative of integration into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as these analyses are based on a finding of an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 6 and 16: These claims recite: identifying alternative articles based on shared content similarity by: automatically identifying alternative articles, finding keywords in alternative articles that match keywords in the shared content, and extracting keywords, which are abstract ideas in the category of mental processes including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional computing elements recited in claims 6 and 16 are the social networking service network, using automatic web crawling for similar content, and supervised keyphrase extraction and additionally in claim 16 a system and control circuitry. The specification discloses the social networking sites the background ¶ [100021] as social media network where “Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter), LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok, and other services include links for content on which they are commenting and/or sharing.” The specification discloses using automatic web crawling in ¶’s [0030, 0036, 0039, 0071, 0074, 0077, 0082, and 0084] in terms of the results returned, i.e. finding similar content based on finding keywords in alternative articles that match keywords in shared content that are extracted using supervised keyphrase extraction. The specification discloses supervised keyphrase extraction in ¶’s [0071, 0074, 0077, and 0084] in terms of the results as disclosed above. However, it is reasonable to assume that automatic web crawling and supervised keyphrase extraction are performed by an algorithm or model. Therefore, the social networking services are software services, i.e. software through which the instructions of the method of claim 6, or of the system and control circuitry of claim 16 are implemented. The system and control circuitry elements of claim 16 are disclosed in ¶’s [0040]-[0054] as general-purpose computing structures disclosed at a high level of generality. Each element above is disclosed at a high level of generality. The claim recites limitations that attempt to cover any solution to the problem with no restriction on how the results are accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result identifying alternative articles, automatically web crawling for similar content, finding keywords, matching keywords, extracting keywords, or using supervised keyphrase extraction. The claims are merely instructions to implement the abstract ideas using the computing structures, algorithms/models, and software services as tools, i.e. the claims add the words “apply it” with the abstract ideas.
The claim recites additional elements that are merely characterizations of data, i.e. non-functional descriptive information limitations that do are not abstract ideas, do not carry patentable weight, and cannot be relied on to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims and specification are focused on the steps taken, i.e. merely executing instructions using algorithms/models, and software services in a method in claim 6, or using the computing structures, algorithms/models, and software services on general purpose computing structures in claim 16, that are incidental or token additions to the claim, that do not alter or affect how the steps of identifying, automatically identifying via automatic web crawling, and using supervised keyphrase extraction are performed (MPEP 2015.06(h)) and (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims as a whole, while looking at the additional elements individually and as a combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: This analysis for Step 2B is commensurate with the analysis above for step 2A, Prong 2. Therefore, for the same reasons disclosed above, the additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, when taken individually and in combination, also do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the identified abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05). The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 7 and 17: These claims recite: identifying alternative articles based on shared content similarity by: automatically identifying alternative articles, finding keywords in alternative articles that match keywords in the shared content, which are abstract ideas in the category of mental processes including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The claims also recite measure a Hamming distance or Levenshtein distance to determine semantic similarity, and cosine similarity between textual and visual content vectors, which are abstract ideas in the category of mathematical concepts, more specifically, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations, because but for the recited model, these three, the Hamming distance, Levenshtein distance and cosine similarity are advanced statistical methods for comparing vectors from texts and/or pictures.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in claims 7 and 17 are automatic web crawling for similar content, supervised keyphrase extraction, the model, the Hamming distance, Levenshtein distance, semantic similarity, and cosine similarity. Additionally, in claim 17, the additional elements are a system and control circuitry. The specification discloses using automatic web crawling in ¶’s [0030, 0036, 0039, 0071, 0074, 0077, 0082, and 0084] in terms of the results returned, i.e. finding similar content based on finding keywords in alternative articles that match keywords in shared content that are extracted using supervised keyphrase extraction, i.e. automatic web crawling is an algorithm or model. The specification discloses supervised keyphrase extraction in ¶’s [0071, 0074, 0077, and 0084] in terms of the results as disclosed above, i.e. supervised keyphrase extraction is also an algorithm or model. The specification discloses the Hamming and Levenshtein distances, and cosine similarity are used to measure the similarity of the shared content with alternative content in ¶ [0084] without disclosing the model recited in the claims. The specification discloses and the claims recite these measurements and cosine similarities in terms of determining the semantic similarity, i.e. in terms of the results, without . Therefore, the social networking services are software services, i.e. software through which the instructions of the method of claim 6, or of the system and control circuitry of claim 16 are implemented. The system and control circuitry elements of claim 16 are disclosed in ¶’s [0040]-[0054] as general-purpose computing structures. Each element above is disclosed at a high level of generality. The claim recites limitations that attempt to cover any solution to the problem with no restriction on how the results are accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result of generating a similarity score, measuring the similarity of content, using a model to measure utilizing the Hamming or Levenshtein distances or determin cosine or semantic similarity. These additional elements and the claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These recitations amount to “apply it,” mere instructions to apply the Judicial Exceptions in a technical field of project management team collaboration and project version control using the generic computing structures as a tool perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).The claims are merely instructions to implement the abstract ideas using the computing structures, algorithms/models, and software services as tools, i.e. to a used to implement the instructions comprised within the abstract ideas, i.e. to implement the abstract idea on computing structures, with algorithms/models, and with software services, e.g. the claims add the words “apply it” with the abstract ideas.
The claim recites additional elements that are merely characterizations of data, i.e. non-functional descriptive information limitations that do are not abstract ideas, do not carry patentable weight, and cannot be relied on to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims and specification are focused on the steps taken, i.e. merely executing instructions using algorithms/models, and software services in a method in claim 6, or using the computing structures, algorithms/models, and software services on general purpose computing structures in claim 16, that are incidental or token additions to the claim, that do not alter or affect how the steps of identifying, automatically identifying via automatic web crawling, and using supervised keyphrase extraction are performed (MPEP 2015.06(h)) and (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims as a whole, while looking at the additional elements individually and as a combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: This analysis for Step 2B is commensurate with the analysis above for step 2A, Prong 2. Therefore, for the same reasons disclosed above, the additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, when taken individually and in combination, also do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the identified abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05). The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 8 and 18: These claims recite: rank the alternative articles based on similarity scores, and recommend alternative articles based on rankings, which are abstract ideas in the category of mental processes including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.
The additional computing elements recited in claim 18 are the system and control circuitry. These elements are disclosed in ¶’s [0040]-[0054] as general-purpose computing structures disclosed at a high level of generality. The claims are merely instructions to implement the abstract ideas using the computing structures and software services as tools, i.e. the claims add the words “apply it” with the abstract ideas.
For claims 8 and 18: It is reasonable to assume that the model from claims 7 and 17 are utilized to perform the ranking and the recommending. Under this further analysis, the additional elements include a ranking model based on the similarity score and a recommendation model based on the ranking. These two models, the ranking model and the recommendation model are recited at a high level of generality, focusing on the outcome without reciting what the models do or how the models perform to reach the outcome of a ranking or recommendation for the alternative articles. The specification also discloses the results-based functions of the ranking and recommending. Therefore, these additional elements are merely tools used to implement the abstract ideas, i.e. the claims are merely instructions to implement the abstract ideas using the models, e.g. the claims add the words “apply it” with the abstract idea.
The claims recite additional elements that are merely characterizations of data, i.e. non-functional descriptive information limitations that do are not abstract ideas, do not carry patentable weight, and cannot be relied on to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims and the specification are focused on the steps taken, i.e. merely executing instructions using computing structures that are incidental or token additions to the claim, that do not alter or affect how the steps of ranking based on similarity scores or recommending based on rankings are performed (MPEP 2015.06(h)) and (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim recites limitations that attempt to cover any solution to the problem with no restriction on how the results are accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result of ranking alternative articles based on similarity score or recommending articles based on ranking. The claim as a whole, while looking at the additional elements individually and as a combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: This analysis for Step 2B is commensurate with the analysis above for step 2A, Prong 2. Therefore, for the same reasons disclosed above, the additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, when taken individually and in combination, also do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the identified abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05). The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 9 and 19: These claims recite: determining data is not accessible without subscription and determining the user account does not have a subscription, which are abstract ideas in the category of mental processes including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional computing elements recited in claims 9 and 19 are a device, the user account, and the provider, and additionally in claim 19 a system and control circuitry. The device element from both claims and the system and control circuitry elements of claim 16 are disclosed in ¶’s [0040]-[0054] as general-purpose computing structures disclosed at a high level of generality. The provider and the user account are each disclosed as databases, where the provider is a database of possibly accessible content data as disclosed in the specification ¶’s [0080-0081] and the user account is disclosed in the specification at ¶ [0006] as the “user account of the posting user” via the social networking service. The social networking service is disclosed in the analysis of claims 1 and 11 as a software service. III Each element above is disclosed at a high level of generality. The claims are merely instructions to implement the abstract ideas using the computing structures and software services as tools, i.e. e.g. the claims add the words “apply it” with the abstract ideas.
The claim recites additional elements that are merely characterizations of data, i.e. non-functional descriptive information limitations that do are not abstract ideas, do not carry patentable weight, and cannot be relied on to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims and specification are focused on the steps taken, i.e. merely executing instructions using computing structures and software services in a method in claim 9, or using the computing structures, and software services on general purpose computing structures in claim 19, that are incidental or token additions to the claim, that do not alter or affect how the steps of identifying, automatically identifying via automatic web crawling, and using supervised keyphrase extraction are performed (MPEP 2015.06(h)) and (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims as a whole, while looking at the additional elements individually and as a combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: This analysis for Step 2B is commensurate with the analysis above for step 2A, Prong 2. Therefore, for the same reasons disclosed above, the additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, when taken individually and in combination, also do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the identified abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05). The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 9-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Godor, US20200195576A1 in view of Ghoshal, US20200125575A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 11: Godor discloses:
For claim 11 only: A control circuitry configured to: [0037] (control circuits ASICS and processors, i.e. at least a control circuitry configured to implement the instructions);
receiving a selection via a user interface to access a link post on a social networking service website , the link post comprising an embedded link to access shared internet article via a network;[0127] (user accesses a cloud based service), [0066] (web based article access), [0060] (user devices request access through user device interactions), [0058] “content that is retrieved from the content repository 440 and linked or embedded into the content authoring user interface at the client device,” [00163] (user making selections on the graphical user interface), [0243] (selection selected by user to access data, may include at least a mouse click on the graphical user interface, performed by the user, using a mouse), [0061] (input content data is received by the user interface); [0022] (receiving internet article at a user device over a network, where received internet article discloses the data is accessed);
based at least in part on the received selection, determining that a device associated with a user account does not have limited access to the internet article, wherein limited access comprises an inability to view the shared internet article in its entirety; [0046] (internet article access limitation restricts access by the user device to predetermined internet article), [0054] (determine whether the user device is eligible or ineligible for receiving internet article under the conditions of a internet article access limitation), [0056] (user does or does not have access rights), [0186] (the selection receipt may trigger the additional functions of the disclosure);
based at least in part on determining that the device associated with the user account has limited access to the shared internet article, identifying alternative internet article, wherein the alternative internet article is identified based on similarity to the shared internet article; [0048] (in response to a limited access assignment to user account, the system retrieves and provisions alternative internet article that matches the original internet article, i.e. the alternative internet article is similar to the original internet article);
based at least in part on determining that the user account does not have limited access to the alternative internet article. [0046] (determining that a user device has or may be given either unlimited internet article access or limited access);
Where Godor does not disclose, Ghoshal teaches:
an embedded link post on a social networking service, the link comprising an embedded link to access shared internet article via a network; [0047] (connect to and access data posted on network), [0055] (the system accesses the original post with an embedded link via a social media service, with the links in the post linking to shared internet article for other users to access, the links to at least shared and/or related articles, web pages, audio files, video files, graphics, or social media posts);
determining that a device associated with a user account has access to the shared internet article; [0157] (information access management, information related to one customer is not accessible by another customer, which implies that at least the one user account has access to the shared internet article);
identifying alternative internet article, wherein the alternative internet article is identified based on similarity to the shared internet article; [0067] (alternative internet article is identified based on similarity to original shared internet article);
access to the alternative internet article; and providing the alternative internet article for consumption via the device associated with the user account; [0125] (related internet article is provided to the user) [0174] (internet article data is sent to the user device via their account on a social media service).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the prior art elements according to known techniques, where the prior art includes each element claimed, although, not necessarily in a single reference. The only difference between the instant invention and the combined prior art disclosures is the lack of actual combination of the elements into one prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, such that the results of the combination are predictable.
Regarding claims 2 and 12: Godor discloses and Ghoshal teaches claims 1 and 11;
Godor discloses:
For claim 12 only: wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: [0037] (control circuits ASICS and processors, i.e. at least a control circuitry configured to implement the instructions);
Where Godor does not disclose, Ghoshal teaches:
determining that the alternative articles can be accessed by any user; [0046] (providing users with unified access and a unified view of the data.)
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the prior art elements according to known techniques, where the prior art includes each element claimed, although, not necessarily in a single reference. The only difference between the instant invention and the combined prior art disclosures is the lack of actual combination of the elements into one prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, such that the results of the combination are predictable.
Regarding Claims 3 and 13: Godor discloses and Ghoshal teaches claims 1 and 11.
Godor discloses:
For claim 13 only: wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: [0037] (control circuits ASICS and processors, i.e. at least a control circuitry configured to implement the instructions);
Where Godor does not disclose, Ghoshal teaches:
wherein the identifying the alternative internet article comprises: identifying one or more alternative articles; and [Abstract] “Internet article relevant to the original internet article items (e.g., images, audio and/or video clips, links to related articles, etc.), may be retrieved), [0058] (alternative articles are determined and recommended);
wherein the alternative articles is identified based at least in part on a selection of a plurality of alternative articles by a user account that posted the link post. [0059] (the alternative data may be selected by the user who posted the original post). [0125] (alternative internet article may be provided to the original user to be selected for inclusion in the alternative internet article being created).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the prior art elements according to known techniques, where the prior art includes each element claimed, although, not necessarily in a single reference. The only difference between the instant invention and the combined prior art disclosures is the lack of actual combination of the elements into one prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, such that the results of the combination are predictable.
Regarding claims 4 and 14: Godor discloses and Ghoshal teaches claims 3 and 13.
Godor discloses:
For claim 14 only: wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: [0037] (control circuits ASICS and processors, i.e. at least a control circuitry configured to implement the instructions);
receiving, at a device associated with the user account that posted the post, a notification that the [data] may not be accessible by some of the recipients. [0047] (notifying a user device, i.e. sending a notification message that is received by a user device with notification that a internet article comprises access limitations), [0056] (in the case of non-eligibility of internet article access, the user terminal is notified).
Where Godor does not disclose, Ghoshal teaches:
receiving, at a device associated with the user account that posted the link post, a notification that the link may not be accessible by some of the recipients. [0053] (the system may catalog data policies, design information, metadata, and audit data for information passing through, including monitoring services ), [0134, 0174, 0175] (event updates sent/received by user devices may include network monitoring and traffic management applications) ,[0155] (receiving a notification at a user device associated with the user account that include event updates, where an event update may include a notification from the network monitoring and/or traffic management applications, such as an embedded link was not accessible by other recipients);
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the prior art elements according to known techniques, where the prior art includes each element claimed, although, not necessarily in a single reference. The only difference between the instant invention and the combined prior art disclosures is the lack of actual combination of the elements into one prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, such that the results of the combination are predictable.
Regarding claims 5 and 15: Godor discloses and Ghoshal teaches claims 3 and 13.
Godor discloses:
For claim 15 only: wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: [0037] (control circuits ASICS and processors, i.e. at least a control circuitry configured to implement the instructions);
Where Godor does not disclose, Ghoshal teaches: wherein the selection of the plurality of alternative articles by the user account that posted the link post comprises receiving the selection of the plurality of alternative articles as a subset of a plurality of options of alternative articles. [0125] (alternative internet article may be provided to the original user to be selected for inclusion in the alternative internet article being created).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the prior art elements according to known techniques, where the prior art includes each element claimed, although, not necessarily in a single reference. The only difference between the instant invention and the combined prior art disclosures is the lack of actual combination of the elements into one prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, such that the results of the combination are predictable.
Regarding claims 9 and 19: Godor discloses and Ghoshal teaches claims 1 and 11.
Godor discloses:
For claim 19 only: wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: [0037] (control circuits ASICS and processors, i.e. at least a control circuitry configured to implement the instructions);
wherein the determining that the device associated with the user account has limited access to the shared internet article comprises:
determining that the shared internet article is not accessible without a subscription to the provider of the shared internet article; and [0004] (data is not accessible without a subscription)
determining that the user account does not have a subscription to the provider. [0011] (There is not a valid subscription).
Where Godor does not disclose, Ghoshal teaches:
Subscription [0152] (subscriptions for services and subsystems, like providers, in cloud infrastructure)
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the prior art elements according to known techniques, where the prior art includes each element claimed, although, not necessarily in a single reference. The only difference between the instant invention and the combined prior art disclosures is the lack of actual combination of the elements into one prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, such that the results of the combination are predictable.
Regarding claims 10 and 20: Godor discloses and Ghoshal teaches claims 1 and 11.\
Godor discloses:
For claim 20 only: wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: [0037] (control circuits ASICS and processors, i.e. at least a control circuitry configured to implement the instructions);
Where Godor does not disclose, Ghoshal teaches:
wherein the alternative internet article comprises one or more of a portable document format (PDF) of one or more pages of the shared internet article, a series of images of the shared internet article, a word processing document of the shared internet article, a slideshow of the shared internet article comprising the textual, image and video elements, or embedded links that are included in the shared internet article, an artificial intelligence (AI)-generated summary of the shared internet article, or a text-to-voice model-generated audio file comprising the shared internet article. [0066] (types of documents including images, word processing documents), [0165] (voice output), [0096-0101] (generative summary of alternate internet article), [0057] (images, links to related articles or web pages, audio or video files, graphics, social media posts, etc.)
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the prior art elements according to known techniques, where the prior art includes each element claimed, although, not necessarily in a single reference. The only difference between the instant invention and the combined prior art disclosures is the lack of actual combination of the elements into one prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, such that the results of the combination are predictable.
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Godor, US20200195576A1 by in view of Ghoshal, US20200125575A1, in further view of Li, CN114265936A.
Regarding claims 6 and 16: Godor discloses and Ghoshal teaches claims 1 and 11.
Godor discloses:
For claim 16 only: wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: [0037] (control circuits ASICS and processors, i.e. at least a control circuitry configured to implement the instructions);
Where Godor does not disclose, Ghoshal teaches:
wherein the one or more alternative internet articles is identified automatically by the social networking service website, wherein the automatically identifying the one or more alternative articles comprises automatic web crawling for similar internet article based on finding keywords in alternative articles that match to keywords in the shared internet article, wherein the keywords in the shared internet article are extracted from the shared internet article using supervised (models). [0003] (web pages), [0054] (the system may automate the functions to perform automatically), [0075] (a search API automatically searches, i.e. web crawls, to perform a deep search for similar internet article based on keywords in the original and alternative data), [0057] (extract keywords from original, i.e. shared, internet article; search for matches of original internet article keywords that match keywords in alternative internet article), [0195] (a supervised model that classifies items, like extracting and matching data from the different internet article).
Where Godor does not disclose, and Ghoshal does not teach, Li teaches: supervised keyphrase extraction. (Examiner note: ¶’s added to translated copy) text extraction via supervised keyphrase extraction. [218-219] (supervised text vector extraction extracts words and phrases) [104] (feature extraction) [115] (text vector extraction).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the prior art elements according to known techniques, where the prior art includes each element claimed, although, not necessarily in a single reference. The only difference between the instant invention and the combined prior art disclosures is the lack of actual combination of the elements into one prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, such that the results of the combination are predictable.
Regarding claims 7 and 17: Godor discloses and Ghoshal and Li teach claims 6 and 16.
Godor discloses:
For claim 17 only: wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: [0037] (control circuits ASICS and processors, i.e. at least a control circuitry configured to implement the instructions);
Where Godor does not disclose, Ghoshal teaches:
generating a similarity score measuring the similarity of the shared internet article to the each article of the plurality of alternative internet
articles by using a model to measure one or more selected from the following: Hamming distance or Levenshtein distance to determine semantic similarity, and cosine similarity between textual and visual internet article vectors. [0098] (context of n-grams (e.g., words) is captured for purpose of determining semantic similarity), [0187] (calculates a final ranking score for each of the matching internet article items), [0005] turn images and text into vectors), [0193] (machine learning models and/or other artificial intelligence based tools, including AI-based text or image classification systems, topic or feature extractions, and/or any other combination of techniques described may be used for processes associated with internet article items and similar and/or recommended internet article items).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the prior art elements according to known techniques, where each of the prior art includes each element claimed, although, not necessarily in a single reference. The only difference between the instant invention and the combined prior art disclosures is the lack of actual combination of the elements into one prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, such that the results of the combination are predictable.
Where Ghoshal does not disclose, and Godor does not teach, Li teaches (Examiner note: ¶ numbering added to translated copy and uploaded into file wrapper): measure one or more selected from the following: Hamming distance or Levenshtein distance to determine semantic similarity, and cosine similarity between textual and visual internet article vectors; [235] (Hamming distance via a model to determin semantic similarity), [231] (Levenshtein distance via a model to determine semantic similarity), [206] (semantic similarity via cosine similarity between vectors that are representations of the data), [23] (vectors from visual internet article), [89] (semantic analysis and other analyses), [20] (the feature extraction specifically constructs an evaluation function to evaluate each feature, then sorts the features according to their scores, and selects a predetermined number of features with the highest scores);
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the prior art elements according to known techniques, where each of the prior art includes each element claimed, although, not necessarily in a single reference. The only difference between the instant invention and the combined prior art disclosures is the lack of actual combination of the elements into one prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, such that the results of the combination are predictable.
Regarding claims 8 and 18: Godor discloses and Ghoshal and Li teach claims 7 and 17. 79. Godor discloses:
For claim 18 only: wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: [0037] (control circuits ASICS and processors, i.e. at least a control circuitry configured to implement the instructions);
Where Godor does not disclose, Ghoshal teaches:
ranking the plurality of alternative internet articles based at least in part on their similarity scores; [0187] (final ranking scores computed for the set of matching internet article items are then used to generate a ranked list of the matching internet article items.)
recommending one or more articles of the one or more alternative articles for consumption based on the rankings. [0187] (This ranked list is then used for identifying a recommended subset of the matching internet article items to be output to the user or client system).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the prior art elements according to known techniques, where each of the prior art includes each element claimed, although, not necessarily in a single reference. The only difference between the instant invention and the combined prior art disclosures is the lack of actual combination of the elements into one prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, such that the results of the combination are predictable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA HATCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1393. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571)270-3923. 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.
/ANGELA HATCH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights