DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20, which are currently pending, are fully considered below.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 4, 2024 and November 13, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 of mental processes and/or math without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites the mental processes of obtaining a set of topic contents associate with a book content, extracting a first set of keywords from the set of topic contents, the first set of keywords being associated with a creation theme of the book, and providing the first set of keywords and corresponding topic information, the topic information indicating a topic content in the set of topic contents that matches a corresponding keyword (a human can obtain book topic contents, extract keywords, and providing sets of keywords).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the keywords in any way, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application. While still a mental step as set forth above, it is noted that the steps of extracting and providing are merely data gathering, necessary to perform the abstract idea, and thus insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of the method being “computer-implemented” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f). The recitation of extracting, while not something that can necessarily be performed mentally by a person, is merely utilizing a computer to more efficiently perform manual processes inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer which has also been held not to amount to significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).
As to claim 2, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 above. In addition, the claims recite ‘determining a set of candidate keywords based on a word segmentation processing on the set of topic contents; removing at least one noise word from the set of candidate keywords based on a relevance between the set of candidate keywords and the creation theme of the book; and determining the first set of keywords based on a frequency of the set of candidate keywords after removal.” These features do not recite any function being performed. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 1 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 2 are directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 3, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above. In addition, the claims recite “obtaining a predetermined set of noise words, the set of noise words comprising a plurality of keywords indicated to be irrelevant to the creation theme of the book, and removing the at least one noise word from the set of candidate keywords that matches the set of noise words (obtaining and removing words can be done by a human).” The limitation merely describes the abstract idea of those claims without amounting to significantly more or reciting any practical application. As such, any obtaining does not carry patentable weight since they are steps not required to be performed by the claims. See MPEP §2111.04.
As to claim 4, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 above. In addition, the claims recite “extracting a second set of keywords associated with the first keyword from a plurality of topic contents that matches the first keyword, wherein a frequency of co-occurrence of the first keyword and the second set of keywords in the plurality of topic contents is higher than a threshold; and providing the second set of keywords in association with the first keyword.” These features do not recite any function being performed. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 1 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 4 are directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 5, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 above. In addition, the claim recites “wherein the topic information corresponding to a target keyword in the first set of keywords comprises at least one of the following: a title of at least one target topic content matching the target keyword; interaction information of the at least one target topic content; a picture associated with the at least one target topic content” These features do not recite any function being performed. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 1 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 5 are directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 6, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above. In addition, the claim recites “displaying a viewing page of the topic content corresponding to the topic information based on a selection of the topic information.” displaying words can be done by a human).” The limitation merely describes the abstract idea of those claims without amounting to significantly more or reciting any practical application. As such, any obtaining does not carry patentable weight since they are steps not required to be performed by the claims. See MPEP §2111.04.
As to claim 7, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 above. In addition, the claim recites “determining a popularity of the first set of keywords based on interaction information of the set of topic contents; and providing popularity information associated with the first set of keywords, the popularity information indicating a change of the popularity of the first set of keywords over a predetermined period.” These features do not recite any function being performed besides determining and providing data. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 1 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 7 are directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 8, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 above. In addition, the claim recites “releasing a book associated with a second keyword based on a selection of the second keyword in the first set of keywords by a creator (releasing a book can be done by a human).” These features do not recite any function being performed. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 1 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 8 are directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 9, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above. In addition, the claim recites “obtaining description information about a book to be released of a creator; and providing a promotion content associated with the book to be released in a target page associated with the creator based on the description information (obtaining and providing words can be done by a human).” The limitation merely describes the abstract idea of those claims without amounting to significantly more or reciting any practical application. As such, any obtaining does not carry patentable weight since they are steps not required to be performed by the claims. See MPEP §2111.04.
As to claim 10, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9 above. In addition, the claim recites “receiving a selection of at least one keyword in the first set of keywords by the creator; and determining the description information about the book to be released based on the at least one selected keyword.” These features do not recite any function being performed. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 1 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 10 are directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 11, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 10 above. In addition, the claims recite “presenting a new book guidance page to the creator in response to a creation content of a released book of the creator exceeding a threshold; and obtaining the description information about the book to be released of the creator via the new book guidance page.” These features do not recite any function being performed. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 11 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 11 are directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 12, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 9 above. In addition, the claims recite “obtaining the description information of the created book based on a selection regarding an unreleased created book by the creator (obtaining and removing words can be done by a human).” The limitation merely describes the abstract idea of those claims without amounting to significantly more or reciting any practical application. As such, any obtaining does not carry patentable weight since they are steps not required to be performed by the claims. See MPEP §2111.04.
As to claim 13, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9 above. In addition, the claims recite “a name of the book to be released; and or a summary of the book to be released.” These features do not recite any function being performed. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 1 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 13 are directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 14, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9 above. In addition, the claims recite “wherein the target page comprises a viewing page of a released target book of the creator (a human can create a target or viewing page).” These features do not recite any function being performed. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 14 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 14 are directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 15, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above. In addition, the claims recite “wherein the target book is determined from a set of books released by the creator based on a predetermined condition, and the predetermined condition comprises a completion status of a book and or an amount of created content of a book (obtaining and removing words can be done by a human).” The limitation merely describes the abstract idea of those claims without amounting to significantly more or reciting any practical application. As such, any obtaining does not carry patentable weight since they are steps not required to be performed by the claims. See MPEP §2111.04.
As to claim 16, the claim recites the mental processes of obtaining a set of topic contents associate with a book content, extracting a first set of keywords from the set of topic contents, the first set of keywords being associated with a creation theme of the book, and providing the first set of keywords and corresponding topic information, the topic information indicating a topic content in the set of topic contents that matches a corresponding keyword (a human can obtain book topic contents, extract keywords, and providing sets of keywords).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the keywords in any way, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application. While still a mental step as set forth above, it is noted that the steps of extracting and providing are merely data gathering, necessary to perform the abstract idea, and thus insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of the method being “computer-implemented” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f). The recitation of extracting, while not something that can necessarily be performed mentally by a person, is merely utilizing a computer to more efficiently perform manual processes inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer which has also been held not to amount to significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).
As to claim 17, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 16 above. In addition, the claims recite ‘determining a set of candidate keywords based on a word segmentation processing on the set of topic contents; removing at least one noise word from the set of candidate keywords based on a relevance between the set of candidate keywords and the creation theme of the book; and determining the first set of keywords based on a frequency of the set of candidate keywords after removal.” These features do not recite any function being performed. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 16 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 17 is directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 18, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above. In addition, the claims recite “obtaining a predetermined set of noise words, the set of noise words comprising a plurality of keywords indicated to be irrelevant to the creation theme of the book, and removing the at least one noise word from the set of candidate keywords that matches the set of noise words (obtaining and removing words can be done by a human).” The limitation merely describes the abstract idea of those claims without amounting to significantly more or reciting any practical application. As such, any obtaining does not carry patentable weight since they are steps not required to be performed by the claims. See MPEP §2111.04.
As to claim 19, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 16 above. In addition, the claims recite “extracting a second set of keywords associated with the first keyword from a plurality of topic contents that matches the first keyword, wherein a frequency of co-occurrence of the first keyword and the second set of keywords in the plurality of topic contents is higher than a threshold; and providing the second set of keywords in association with the first keyword.” These features do not recite any function being performed. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 16 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 19 are directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 20, the claim recites the mental processes of obtaining a set of topic contents associate with a book content, extracting a first set of keywords from the set of topic contents, the first set of keywords being associated with a creation theme of the book, and providing the first set of keywords and corresponding topic information, the topic information indicating a topic content in the set of topic contents that matches a corresponding keyword (a human can obtain book topic contents, extract keywords, and providing sets of keywords).
A judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate it into a practical application. Nothing is done to actually process the keywords in any way, let alone any meaningful way that could amount to any practical application. While still a mental step as set forth above, it is noted that the steps of extracting and providing are merely data gathering, necessary to perform the abstract idea, and thus insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the recitation of the method being “computer-implemented” merely attempts to generically implement the abstract idea on a computer, and is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f). The recitation of extracting, while not something that can necessarily be performed mentally by a person, is merely utilizing a computer to more efficiently perform manual processes inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer which has also been held not to amount to significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).
Conclusion/Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRIA Y BROMELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3034. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Robert Beausoliel can be reached at 571-272-3645. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA Y BROMELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2167 December 26, 2025