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
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed on 10/28/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 1-20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-13 of Applicant’s response with respect to the deficiencies of Nguyen regarding entering a time period and subject have been fully considered, but the arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 13-14, that Nguyen fails to teach the entering of a predetermined prompt into a model. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that Nguyen further a prompt input into the model in the form of requests for summaries from the model. (Nguyen: col. 5 lines 15-45, Fig. 1) Examiner respectfully notes that broadest reasonable interpretation of the term prompt includes requests for outputs from a model. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Nguyen fails to teach the generation and display of an information card. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that Nguyen teaches an information card in the form of a category specific review document summary may be created and displayed to the user. (Nguyen: col. 5 lines 15-45, Fig. 1) Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-10 of Applicant’s Response filed 10/28/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 9, that claim 1 now clarifies that the method is used to improve efficiency of information processing, and therefore the claims bring about a technical benefit. Examiner respectfully notes that the phrase “improving efficiency of information processing” amounts to the mere intended result of the method, and is therefore not afforded patentable weight here. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Assuming arguendo that the claims do in fact improve how users access and consume large volumes of data, Examiner respectfully notes that such a benefit is to the abstract idea itself (the process by which the information is organized and summarized), rather than to any technical component or computer technology, since, the benefits would be brought about if the invention were practiced by hand outside of the realm of the generic computer components recited. An improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.06(a)(II). As such, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 10, that the claimed elements recite steps which cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that, but for the requirement to implement the steps using “a computing device” and “a target system,” a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation and judgment could indeed perform each of these steps. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that the claim does not recite mathematical concepts is unpersuasive since the broadest reasonable interpretation of inputting information as a prompt to a model and receiving output from the model recites mathematical concepts since it is so broad as to encompass any mathematical operation or formula for obtaining second information from the target model.
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. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1, 10, and 19 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a process, a machine, and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1, 10, and 19 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1, 10, and 19, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
receiving user. . . wherein the user input indicates at least a time associated with obtaining first information and a type of the first information; (claims 1, 10, and 19; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement this step using a generic computer component, a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive this information)
sending a request. . . for the first information having the type . . . based on the time indicated by the user input; (claims 1, 10, and 19; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement this step using a generic computer component, a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could send this information)
receiving the first information having the type. . . in response to the request; (claims 1, 10, and 19; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive this information)
sending a predetermined prompt and the first information to a target model. . . wherein the target model is trained to summarize information using a predetermined data set; (claims 1, 10, and 19; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could input information into a target model to get second information of lesser volume; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since it is so broad as to encompass any mathematical operation or formula for obtaining second information from the target model)
receiving second information generated by the target model based on the predetermined prompt and the first information, wherein the second information summarizes the first information, and wherein a data volume of the second information is less than that of the first information; (claims 1, 10, and 19; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement this step using a generic computer component, a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive this information)
generating an information card based on the second information; (claims 1, 10, and 19; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement this step using a generic computer component, a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate an information card based on this information and display it to a user in a target service scenario)
and displaying the information card in a target service scenario to enable a user of the target service scenario to view the second information, wherein the target service scenario comprises at least one of a document or a communication session. (claims 1, 10, and 19; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement this step using a generic computer component, a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate an information card based on this information and display it to a user in a target service scenario)
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
An electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor executes the program to implement acts comprising: (claim 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer instructions for causing the computer to implement acts comprising: (claim 19; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . .by a computing device. . . (claims 1, 10, 19; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . to a target system. . . (claims 1, 10, 19; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1, 10, and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 2, 11, and 20:
wherein the user input further indicates the predetermined prompt and the target service scenario.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could set these three conditions in response to a setting operation of a first user.
Claims 3 and 12:
wherein the time indicated by the user input comprises at least one of: a trigger time for obtaining the first information; or an obtaining period of the first information
wherein, the type of the first information comprises attribute information of a target object.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could set these three conditions.
Claims 4 and 13:
before sending the first information to the target model, modifying target information in at least one piece of the first information into replacement information;
after receiving the second information generated by the target model, modifying replacement information in the second information into the target information.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could modify first information into replacement information and then modify replacement information back into the first information.
Claims 5 and 14:
wherein sending the predetermined prompt and the first information to the target model comprises: dividing the first information into a plurality of data fragments;
and inputting the plurality of data fragments into the target model to obtain sub-information corresponding to each data fragment
combining the sub-information corresponding to each data fragment to generate the second information corresponding to the at least one piece of first information.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could divide information into data fragments, input them into a model, and combine sub-information to generate second information.
Claims 6 and 15:
wherein displaying the information card in the target service scenario comprises sending the information card to the target service scenario.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could display an information card with the results of the model.
Claims 7 and 16:
wherein the communication session comprises at least one of a chat session, a task, a mail, or a conference.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the target service scenario used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 8 and 17:
wherein the information card comprises the second information and at least one of: an obtaining time of the second information; an industry to which the second information belongs; a product to which the second information belongs; an obtaining period of the second information.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the information card used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 9 and 18:
further comprising: in response to a trigger operation of the second type of user on any of second information in the information card, displaying the first information associated with the second information that is triggered in the target service scenario.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could display first information in response to a trigger operation from a user.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11972463; hereinafter "Nguyen") in view of Boone et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20070198459; hereinafter "Boone").
As per claim 1, Nguyen teaches:
A method of improving efficiency of information processing, comprising:
Nguyen teaches a system and method for processing information. (Nguyen: abstract)
Examiner’s Note: Examiner respectfully notes that the phrase “improving efficiency of information processing” amounts to the mere intended result of the method, and is therefore not afforded patentable weight here.
With respect to the following limitation:
receiving user input by a computing device, wherein the user input indicates at least a time associated with obtaining first information and a type of the first information;
Nguyen teaches that a system may receive first information in the form of user reviews for products. (Nguyen: col. 5 lines 15-27) Nguyen further teaches that the reviews may contain information which satisfies a first predetermined condition in the form of categories of information (types of information comprising attribute information) within the user reviews, wherein these categories may be selected in advance as business objectives. (Nguyen: col. 2 lines 21-37, col. 3 lines 12-15, col. 5 lines 15-67, Figs. 1, 7) Nguyen, however, does not appear to explicitly teach the selection of a time period over which the user would like information analyzed.
Boone, however, teaches that a user may select a time period over which the user would like online content summarized, and type of content to analyze, wherein the system may then generate an analysis of content over the selected time period for the user. (Boone: paragraphs [0069-71, 74], Fig. 9) Boone teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Nguyen for the benefit of providing insight into the market perceptions that companies care about (e.g., target market profiles, customer opinions of products, and company analyst perceptions), gleaning the public's perceptions and sentiments regarding various subjects and topics of interest, understanding and tracking the topics of interest to an organization, such as the topics discussed by a company's customers online. (Boone: paragraph [0012]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Boone with the teachings of Nguyen to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Nguyen in view of Boone further teaches:
sending a request to a target system for the first information having the type by the computing device based on the time indicated by the user input;
Nguyen teaches that a system may receive first information in the form of user reviews for products. (Nguyen: col. 5 lines 15-27) Nguyen further teaches that the reviews may contain information which satisfies a first predetermined condition in the form of categories of information (types of information comprising attribute information) within the user reviews, wherein these categories may be selected in advance as business objectives. (Nguyen: col. 2 lines 21-37, col. 3 lines 12-15, col. 5 lines 15-67, Figs. 1, 7) Boone, as outlined above, teaches that a user may select a time period over which the user would like online content summarized, and type of content to analyze, wherein the system may then generate an analysis of content over the selected time period for the user. (Boone: paragraphs [0069-71, 74], Fig. 9) The motivation to combine Boone persists.
receiving the first information having the type by the computing device from the target system in response to the request;
Nguyen teaches that a system may receive first information in the form of user reviews for products. (Nguyen: col. 5 lines 15-27) Nguyen further teaches that the reviews may contain information which satisfies a first predetermined condition in the form of categories of information within the user reviews of a given product (a target service scenario), wherein these categories may be selected in advance as business objectives. (Nguyen: col. 2 lines 21-37, col. 3 lines 12-15, col. 5 lines 15-67, Figs. 1, 7)
sending a predetermined prompt and the first information to a target model by the computing device, wherein the target model is trained to summarize information using a predetermined data set;
Nguyen teaches that the review information may be submitted into a target model, wherein the target model classifies content in each review into one of the selected categories and distills the information into a shorter summary which may be displayed to the user. (Nguyen: col. 5 lines 46-67, col. 6 lines 1-67, col. 16 lines 35-67, col. 7 lines 1-30, Figs. 1, 7) Nguyen further teaches a prompt input into the model in the form of requests for summaries from the model. (Nguyen: col. 5 lines 15-45, Fig. 1)
receiving second information generated by the target model based on the predetermined prompt and the first information, wherein the second information summarizes the first information, and wherein a data volume of the second information is less than that of the first information;
Nguyen teaches that the review information may be submitted into a target model, wherein the target model classifies content in each review into one of the selected categories and distills the information into a shorter summary which may be displayed to the user. (Nguyen: col. 5 lines 46-67, col. 6 lines 1-67, col. 16 lines 35-67, col. 7 lines 1-30, Figs. 1, 7) Nguyen further teaches a prompt input into the model in the form of requests for summaries from the model. (Nguyen: col. 5 lines 15-45, Fig. 1)
generating an information card based on the second information;
Nguyen teaches that the review information may be submitted into a target model, wherein the target model classifies content in each review into one of the selected categories and distills the information into a shorter summary which may be displayed to the user. (Nguyen: col. 5 lines 46-67, col. 6 lines 1-67, col. 16 lines 35-67, col. 7 lines 1-30, Figs. 1, 7) Nguyen further teaches a prompt input into the model in the form of requests for summaries from the model. (Nguyen: col. 5 lines 15-45, Fig. 1) Nguyen further teaches an information card in the form of a category specific review document summary may be created and displayed to the user. (Nguyen: col. 5 lines 15-45, Fig. 1)
and displaying the information card in a target service scenario to enable a user of the target service scenario to view the second information, wherein the target service scenario comprises at least one of a document or a communication session.
Nguyen teaches that the review information may be submitted into a target model, wherein the target model classifies content in each review into one of the selected categories and distills the information into a shorter summary which may be displayed to the user. (Nguyen: col. 5 lines 46-67, col. 6 lines 1-67, col. 16 lines 35-67, col. 7 lines 1-30, Figs. 1, 7) Nguyen further teaches a prompt input into the model in the form of requests for summaries from the model. (Nguyen: col. 5 lines 15-45, Fig. 1) Nguyen further teaches an information card in the form of a category specific review document summary may be created and displayed to the user. (Nguyen: col. 5 lines 15-45, Fig. 1)
As per claim 5, Nguyen in view of Boone teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein sending the predetermined prompt and the first information to the target model comprises: dividing the first information into a plurality of data fragments;
Nguyen further teaches that reviews may be divided into a plurality of text fragments which may be input into the model to obtain sub-information which is compiled to generate the summary. (Nguyen: col. 17 lines 31-67, col. 18 lines 1-35)
and inputting the plurality of data fragments into the target model to obtain sub-information corresponding to each data fragment
Nguyen further teaches that reviews may be divided into a plurality of text fragments which may be input into the model to obtain sub-information which is compiled to generate the summary. (Nguyen: col. 17 lines 31-67, col. 18 lines 1-35)
combining the sub-information corresponding to each data fragment to generate the second information corresponding to the at least one piece of first information.
Nguyen further teaches that reviews may be divided into a plurality of text fragments which may be input into the model to obtain sub-information which is compiled to generate the summary. (Nguyen: col. 17 lines 31-67, col. 18 lines 1-35)
As per claim 6, Nguyen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein displaying the information card in the target service scenario comprises sending the information card to the target service scenario.
Nguyen further teaches an information card in the form of a category specific review document summary may be displayed the user. (Nguyen: col. 5 lines 15-45, Fig. 1)
As per claim 7, Nguyen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the communication session comprises at least one of a chat session, a task, a mail, or a conference.
Nguyen further teaches a target service scenario in the form of product review documents, a task. (Nguyen: col. 5 lines 15-45, Fig. 1)
As per claim 8, Nguyen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the information card comprises the second information and at least one of: an obtaining time of the second information; an industry to which the second information belongs; a product to which the second information belongs; an obtaining period of the second information.
Nguyen further teaches an information card in the form of a category specific review document summary card for a product may be displayed the user. (Nguyen: col. 5 lines 15-45, Fig. 1)
As per claim 10, Nguyen teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
An electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor executes the program to implement acts comprising:
Nguyen teaches a system and method for processing information. (Nguyen: abstract) Nguyen teaches the implementation of the system and method using a computing device which may comprise a processor which executes code stored in a non-transitory memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Nguyen: col. 9 lines 64-67; col. 10 lines 1-34)
As per claims 14-17, Nguyen teaches the limitations of these claims which are substantially identical to those of claims 5-8, and claims 14-7 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 5-8, as outlined above.
As per claim 19, Nguyen teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer instructions for causing the computer to implement acts comprising:
Nguyen teaches a system and method for processing information. (Nguyen: abstract) Nguyen teaches the implementation of the system and method using a computing device which may comprise a processor which executes code stored in a non-transitory memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Nguyen: col. 9 lines 64-67; col. 10 lines 1-34)
Claims 2-3, 9, 11-12, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Boone in view of Mckeown et al. (U.S. Patent No. 20150032645; hereinafter "Mckeown").
As per claim 2, Nguyen in view of Boone teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein the user input further indicates the predetermined prompt and the target service scenario.
Nguyen teaches that a system may receive first information in the form of user reviews for products. (Nguyen: col. 5 lines 15-27) Nguyen further teaches that the reviews may contain information which satisfies a first predetermined condition in the form of categories of information within the user reviews, wherein these categories may be selected in advance as business objectives. (Nguyen: col. 2 lines 21-37, col. 3 lines 12-15, col. 5 lines 15-67, Figs. 1, 7) Nguyen further teaches that the reviews may contain information which satisfies a first predetermined condition in the form of categories of information within the user reviews of a given product (a target service scenario), wherein these categories may be selected in advance as business objectives. (Nguyen: col. 2 lines 21-37, col. 3 lines 12-15, col. 5 lines 15-67, Figs. 1, 7)
To be thorough, and to the extent that Nguyen does not explicitly teach that a prompt and target service scenario are set by the user, Mckeown teaches this element. Mckeown teaches that a user may enter a prompt in the form of an amount of information the user wants in the summary and a target service scenario in the form of a type of document needed to be summarized into a machine learning document summary model. (Mckeown: paragraphs [0033, 35], Fig. 2) Mckeown teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Nguyen in view of Boone for the benefit of simplifying document review for a user and increasing accuracy of extraction of information. (Mckeown: paragraph [0020]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Mckeown with the teachings of Nguyen in view of Boone to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 3, Nguyen in view of Boone in view of Mckeown teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the time indicated by the user input comprises at least one of: a trigger time for obtaining the first information; or an obtaining period of the first information
Nguyen teaches that a system may receive first information in the form of user reviews for products. (Nguyen: col. 5 lines 15-27) Nguyen further teaches that the reviews may contain information which satisfies a first predetermined condition in the form of categories of information (attribute information) within the user reviews, wherein these categories may be selected in advance as business objectives. (Nguyen: col. 2 lines 21-37, col. 3 lines 12-15, col. 5 lines 15-67, Figs. 1, 7)
As per claim 9, Nguyen in view of Boone teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
further comprising: in response to a trigger operation of the second type of user on any of second information in the information card, displaying the first information associated with the second information that is triggered in the target service scenario.
Mckeown, however, teaches that summaries of documents may be displayed to a user, and when the user clicks on a link, full versions of a document which has been summarized may be displayed. (Mckeown: paragraphs [0043], Fig. 2) Mckeown teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Nguyen in view of Boone for the benefit of simplifying document review for a user and increasing accuracy of extraction of information. (Mckeown: paragraph [0020]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Mckeown with the teachings of Nguyen in view of Boone to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claims 11-12, 18, and 19, Nguyen in view of Boone in view of Mckeown teaches the limitations of these claims which are substantially identical to those of claims 2-3, 9, and 2, respectively, and claims 11-2, 18, and 19, are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2-3, 9, and 2, respectively, as outlined above.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Boone in view of Dorneich, Ansgar (WIPO Publication No. WO 2009149926 A2; hereinafter "Dorneich").
As per claim 4, Nguyen in view of Boone teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
before sending the first information to the target model, modifying target information in at least one piece of the first information into replacement information;
Dorneich, however, teaches that information to be analyzed with a neural network may be anonymized (modification of target information with replacement information) before sending to a server and then deanonymized (modification of second information with replacement information) once the results are received back from the server. (Dorneich: abstract, paragraphs [0029, 31], abstract) Dorneich teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Nguyen in view of Boone for the benefit of increasing the efficiency and security of data analysis. (Dorneich: paragraph [0023]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Dorneich with the teachings of Nguyen in view of Boone to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Nguyen in view of Boone in view of Dorneich further teaches:
after receiving the second information generated by the target model, modifying replacement information in the second information into the target information.
Dorneich, however, teaches that information to be analyzed with a neural network may be anonymized (modification of target information with replacement information) before sending to a server and then deanonymized (modification of second information with replacement information) once the results are received back from the server. (Dorneich: abstract, paragraphs [0029, 31], abstract) The motivation to combine Dorneich persists.
As per claim 13, Nguyen in view of Boone in view of Dorneich teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 4, and claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4, as outlined above.
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 EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights