Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to patent application as filed on 8/21/2024
This action is made Non-Final.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 15, and 18 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/21/2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 8/21/2024 have been accepted 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, 4, 7, 10, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, the Examiner is guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019), and the October 2019 Update of the 2019 Revised Guidance (Oct. 17, 2019).
Step 1
Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas). Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U. S. ____ (2014). Claim 1 is directed to a statutory category, because a series of steps for summarizing an article satisfies the requirements of a process (a series of acts). (Step 1: Yes).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more of electronic health record documentation. The claim recites:
1. A display device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: acquire an article regarding cybersecurity; generate a summary sentence obtained by summarizing the article using a language model; and display the summary sentence.
The limitations of acquire an article; generate a summary by summarizing the article; display the summary, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. (Note: the Examiner’s language (e.g. “acquire an article”; “generate a summary,” etc.) is an abbreviated reference to the detailed claim steps and is not an oversimplification of the claim language; the Examiner employing such shortcuts (that refer to more specific steps) when attempting to explain the rejection). That is, other than reciting “a display device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, and/or performed as organized human activity. Aside from the general technological environment (addressed below), it covers purely mental concepts and/or certain methods of organizing human activity processes, and the mere nominal recitation of a generic network appliance (e.g. an interface for inputting or outputting data, or generic network-based storage devices and displays) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. As per using machine learning (ML) technology for data processing limitations, said recitation does not make the claim patent eligible, because said tools are utilized merely for data gathering and are not utilized in express manipulation and control of functional aspects and/or hardware components/equipment of real-world processes and systems using output of AI models (e.g., manufacturing processes and equipment, medical treatments, communications processes and systems, logistics systems and hardware, interactive smart phone apps, etc.).
Specifically, generate a summary by summarizing the article; display the summary - said functions could be performed by a human using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas (e.g., mental comparison regarding a sample or test subject to a control or target data in Ambry, Myriad CAFC, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Grams)). In Grams, the recited functions require obtaining data or patient information (from sensors), and analyze that data to ascertain the existence and identity of an abnormality or estimated responses, and possible causes thereof. While said functions are performed by a computer, they are in essence a mathematical algorithm, in that they represent "[a] procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem." Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 93 S.Ct. 253, 254, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972). Moreover, the Federal Circuit has held, “without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, “analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.” Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354; see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
It is similar to other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts. See, also, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)—tailoring sales information presented to a user based on, e.g., user data and time data; Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) - collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind; DataTreasury Corp. v. Fidelity National Information Services 669 Fed. Appx. 572 (Fed. Cir. 2016) - remote image capture with centralized processing and storage.
Further, regarding parsing and extracting the data, - in Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass’n, Nos. 13-1588,-1589, 14-1112, -1687 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2014) the Federal Circuit affirmed that such limitations were generally directed to “the abstract idea of 1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory.” The Court explained that ”[t]he concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known,” and noted that “humans have always performed these functions.” Id. The Court then rejected CET’s argument that the claims were patent eligible because they required hardware to perform functions that humans cannot, such as processing and recognizing the stream of bits output by the scanner. Comparing the asserted claims to “the computer-implemented claims in Alice,” the Court concluded that the claims were “drawn to the basic concept of data recognition and storage,” even though they recited a scanner. Id. at 8. Mental processes, e.g., parsing and extracting, as recited in claim 1, remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. CyberSource Corp. at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson, [409 U.S. 63 (1972)].”).
As per acquiring, generating and displaying data limitations, it has been held that “As many cases make clear, even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted); see also In re Jobin, 811 F. App’x 633, 637 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (claims to collecting, organizing, grouping, and storing data using techniques such as conducting a survey or crowdsourcing recited a method of organizing human activity, which is a hallmark of abstract ideas).
All these cases describe the significant aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
Therefore, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes”, and/or “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes).
Step 2A – Prong 2
In Prong Two, the Examiner determines whether claim 1, as a whole, recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, i.e., whether the additional elements apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. If the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the judicial exception. See id., 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. “An additional element [that] reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field” is indicative of integrating a judicial exception into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
The Examiner determined that this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – a display device comprising a memory configured to store instructions, and a processor to execute the instructions, to perform the steps of acquire an article; generate a summary by summarizing the article; display the summary. However, the computer in each step is recited (or implied) at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing generic computer functions of processing data, including receiving, detecting, extracting, storing, and presenting data. This generic computer limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The processor that performs the recited steps merely automates these steps which can be done mentally or manually. Thus, while the additional elements have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." The claim only manipulates abstract data elements into another form, and does not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and, instead, uses computer elements as tools in a conventional way to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. As per using ML technology for data processing limitations, said steps are nothing more than an attempt to recycle preexisting artificial intelligence or machine-learning (AI/ML) technologies to apply for voice recognition applications. There are no improvements in said ML techniques, such as advances in the field of computer science itself, or designing a new neural network, and there is no controlling of a technological process using the outcome of said AI/ML operations.
Further, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually; there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology including AI/ML technology, - their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. None of the additional elements "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Also, the recited steps do not control or improve operation of a machine (MPEP 2106.05(a)), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), but, instead, require acquiring, summarizing, and outputting data.
As per acquire an article; display the summary limitations, these recitations amount to mere data gathering and/or outputting, is insignificant post-solution or extra-solution component and represents nominal recitation of technology. Insignificant "post-solution” or “extra-solution" activity means activity that is not central to the purpose of the steps invented by the applicant. However, “(c) Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the execution of the claimed steps. Use of a machine or apparatus that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would weigh against eligibility”. See Bilski, 138 S. Ct. at 3230 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, ___ (1978)). Thus, claim drafting strategies that attempt to circumvent the basic exceptions to § 101 using, for example, highly stylized language, hollow field-of-use limitations, or the recitation of token post-solution activity should not be credited. See Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3230.
Therefore, the steps recited in the device claim as a whole, outputs only data structure, - everything remains in the form of a code stored in the computer memory. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No).
Step 2B
If a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under revised Step 2A, examiners should then evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether the provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the recited steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim is now storing steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The system would require a processor and memory in order to perform basic computer functions of acquire an article; generate a summary by summarizing the article; display the summary. These components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality. Based on the Specification, the invention utilizes existing, conventional communication networks and generic processors, which can be found in mobile devices or desktop computers, conventional memory and display devices, and conventional AI/ML techniques, and the functions performed by said generic computer elements are basic functions of a computer - performing a mathematical operation, receiving, storing and outputting data - have recognized by the courts as routine and conventional activity.
Here, the Examiner notes, that the use of AI/ML techniques in various fields of research and development is very common, and is “well known in the art” given that Donald Hebb created a model of brain cell interaction and described it in his book titled “The Organization of Behavior” in 1949. Hebb’s model involves altering the relationships between artificial neurons/nodes and the changes to individual neurons, wherein the relationship between two neurons/nodes strengthens if the two neurons/nodes are activated at the same time and weakens if they are activated separately, and wherein nodes/neurons tending to be both positive or both negative are described as having strong positive weights, and those nodes tending to have opposite weights develop strong negative weights. And Markov decision process(s) (MDPs) were known at least as early as the 1950s; a core body of research on Markov decision processes resulted from Ronald Howard's 1960 book, “Dynamic Programming and Markov Processes”. They are used in many disciplines, including robotics, automatic control, economics and manufacturing.
Thus, the background of the current application does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the recited steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, the recited functions do not improve the functioning of computers itself, including of the processor(s) or the network elements. There are no physical improvements in the claim, like a faster processor or more efficient memory, and there is no operational improvement, like mathematical computation that improve the functioning of the computer. Applicant did not invent a new type of computer; Applicant like everyone else programs their computer to perform functions. The Supreme Court in Alice indicated that an abstract claim might be statutory if it improved another technology or the computer processing itself. Using a (programmed) computer to implement a common business practice does neither. The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, comparing and transmitting data—see the Specification as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually; there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. “However, it is not apparent how appellant’s programmed digital computer can produce any synergistic result. Instead, the computer will simply do the job it is instructed to do. Where is there any surprising or unexpected result? The unlikelihood of any such result is merely one more reason why patents should not be granted in situations where the only novelty is in the programming of general purpose digital computers”. See Sakraida v. Ag. Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 [ 96 S.Ct. 1532, 47 L.Ed.2d 784], 189 USPQ 449 (1976) and A P Tea Co. V. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 [ 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162], 87 USPQ 303 (1950).
Furthermore, there is no transformation recited in the claim as understood in view of 35 USC 101. The steps of acquire an article; generate a summary by summarizing the article; display the summary merely represent abstract ideas which cannot meet the transformation test because they are not physical objects or substances. Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963. Said steps are nothing more than mere manipulation or reorganization of data, which does not satisfy the transformation prong. It is further noted that the underlying idea of the recited steps could be performed via pen and paper or in a person's mind. Moreover, “We agree with the district court that the claimed process manipulates data to organize it in a logical way such that additional fraud tests may be performed. The mere manipulation or reorganization of data, however, does not satisfy the transformation prong.” and “Abele made clear that the basic character of a process claim drawn to an abstract idea is not changed by claiming only its performance by computers, or by claiming the process embodied in program instructions on a computer readable medium. Thus, merely claiming a software implementation of a purely mental process that could otherwise be performed without the use of a computer does not satisfy the machine prong of the machine-or-transformation test”. CyberSource, 659 F.3d 1057, 100 U.S.P.Q.2d 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because, when considered separately and in combination, the claim elements do not add significantly more to the exception. Considered separately and as an ordered combination, the claim elements do not provide an improvement to another technology or technical field; do not provide an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; do not apply the judicial exception by use of a particular machine; do not effect a transformation or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the operation of a generic computer. None of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Id., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). As per “… automatic electronic health record documentation” recitations, these limitations do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers." Id., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Limiting the claims to the particular technological environment is, without more, insufficient to transform the claim into patent-eligible applications of the abstract idea at their core.
Accordingly, claim 1 is not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and is not eligible subject matter under § 101. (Step 2B: No).
Further, although the Examiner takes the steps recited in the independent claims as exemplary, the Examiner points out that limitations recited in dependent claims 4, 7 and 10, further narrow the abstract idea but do not make the claims any less abstract. Dependent claims 4, 7 and 10 each merely add further details of the abstract steps recited in claim 1 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. These claims "add nothing of practical significance to the underlying idea," and thus do not transform the claimed abstract idea into patentable subject matter. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716. Therefore, dependent claims 4, 7 and 10 are also directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Because Applicant’s method claim 15 and CRM claim 18 adds nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea, they too are patent ineligi-ble under §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 15, 16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (USPUB 20150339288) in view of Baruch (USPUB 20240354503 filed Jun. 26, 2023 which claims Foreign Priority to French Pat. App. No: 2304014 filed Apr. 21, 2023).
Claim 1:
Baker teaches A display device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor (0114) configured to execute the instructions to: acquire an article regarding cybersecurity (0029: For a set of articles, classification module 208 receives the body of text for each article from extraction module 206 and classifies the article into one or more categories. Categories may include for example, and without limitation, U.S. News, World News, Business, Technology, Politics, Sports, Entertainment, Science, and Health); generate a summary sentence obtained by summarizing the article (0013: The system breaks down each article into its component sentences…In this way, the system generates quickly readable article summaries…using relevant sentences from the article that maintain the coherence of the article); and display the summary sentence (0081: Summarization system 110 may then provide the article summary to be viewed on an interactive interface on a user device).
Baker, by itself, does not seem to completely teach generate a summary sentence obtained by summarizing the article using a language model.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Baruch.
Baruch teaches generate a summary sentence obtained by summarizing the article using a language model (0071: the neural network-based machine learning model architecture includes or is based on one or more generative transformer models, one or more generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) models, one or more bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) models, one or more large language models (LLMs)… a multimodal neural network of the thought starter generation system 100 is capable of outputting digital content that includes a combination of two or more of text, images, video or audio).
Baker and Baruch are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, summarizing content.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Baker and Baruch before him or her, to combine the teachings of Baker and Baruch. The rationale for doing so would have been to summarize content using a system that can continue to get better at summarization of content.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Baker and Baruch to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claim 2:
Baker, by itself, does not seem to completely teach change the summarized summary sentence to a reading sentence format; generate audio data obtained by reading out a summary sentence; and output the audio data.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Baruch.
Baruch teaches change the summarized summary sentence to a reading sentence format; generate audio data obtained by reading out a summary sentence; and output the audio data (0054: User-created inputs 102 can include structured data, such as data entered by the user into an online form that enforces one or more input rules that constrain the values and/or format of the input, and/or unstructured data, such as natural language text, audio, or transcriptions).
Baker and Baruch are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, summarizing content.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Baker and Baruch before him or her, to combine the teachings of Baker and Baruch. The rationale for doing so would have been to summarize content using various forms of summarization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Baker and Baruch to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claim 15:
Baker teaches A display method comprising: acquiring an article regarding cybersecurity (0029: For a set of articles, classification module 208 receives the body of text for each article from extraction module 206 and classifies the article into one or more categories. Categories may include for example, and without limitation, U.S. News, World News, Business, Technology, Politics, Sports, Entertainment, Science, and Health); generating a summary sentence obtained by summarizing the article (0013: The system breaks down each article into its component sentences…In this way, the system generates quickly readable article summaries…using relevant sentences from the article that maintain the coherence of the article); and display the summary sentence (0081: Summarization system 110 may then provide the article summary to be viewed on an interactive interface on a user device).
Baker, by itself, does not seem to completely teach generating a summary sentence obtained by summarizing the article using a language model.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Baruch.
Baruch teaches generate a summary sentence obtained by summarizing the article using a language model (0071: the neural network-based machine learning model architecture includes or is based on one or more generative transformer models, one or more generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) models, one or more bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) models, one or more large language models (LLMs)… a multimodal neural network of the thought starter generation system 100 is capable of outputting digital content that includes a combination of two or more of text, images, video or audio).
Baker and Baruch are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, summarizing content.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Baker and Baruch before him or her, to combine the teachings of Baker and Baruch. The rationale for doing so would have been to summarize content using a system that can continue to get better at summarization of content.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Baker and Baruch to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claim 16:
Baker, by itself, does not seem to completely teach changing the summarized summary sentence to a reading sentence format; generating audio data obtained by reading out a summary sentence; and outputting the audio data.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Baruch.
Baruch teaches changing the summarized summary sentence to a reading sentence format; generating audio data obtained by reading out a summary sentence; and outputting the audio data (0054: User-created inputs 102 can include structured data, such as data entered by the user into an online form that enforces one or more input rules that constrain the values and/or format of the input, and/or unstructured data, such as natural language text, audio, or transcriptions).
Baker and Baruch are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, summarizing content.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Baker and Baruch before him or her, to combine the teachings of Baker and Baruch. The rationale for doing so would have been to summarize content using various forms of summarization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Baker and Baruch to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claim 18:
Baker teaches A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that records a program for causing a computer to execute (0114): acquiring an article regarding cybersecurity (0029: For a set of articles, classification module 208 receives the body of text for each article from extraction module 206 and classifies the article into one or more categories. Categories may include for example, and without limitation, U.S. News, World News, Business, Technology, Politics, Sports, Entertainment, Science, and Health); generating a summary sentence obtained by summarizing the article (0013: The system breaks down each article into its component sentences…In this way, the system generates quickly readable article summaries…using relevant sentences from the article that maintain the coherence of the article); and display the summary sentence (0081: Summarization system 110 may then provide the article summary to be viewed on an interactive interface on a user device).
Baker, by itself, does not seem to completely teach generating a summary sentence obtained by summarizing the article using a language model.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Baruch.
Baruch teaches generate a summary sentence obtained by summarizing the article using a language model (0071: the neural network-based machine learning model architecture includes or is based on one or more generative transformer models, one or more generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) models, one or more bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) models, one or more large language models (LLMs)… a multimodal neural network of the thought starter generation system 100 is capable of outputting digital content that includes a combination of two or more of text, images, video or audio).
Baker and Baruch are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, summarizing content.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Baker and Baruch before him or her, to combine the teachings of Baker and Baruch. The rationale for doing so would have been to summarize content using a system that can continue to get better at summarization of content.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Baker and Baruch to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claim 19:
Baker, by itself, does not seem to completely teach changing the summarized summary sentence to a reading sentence format; generating audio data obtained by reading out a summary sentence; and outputting the audio data.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Baruch.
Baruch teaches changing the summarized summary sentence to a reading sentence format; generating audio data obtained by reading out a summary sentence; and outputting the audio data (0054: User-created inputs 102 can include structured data, such as data entered by the user into an online form that enforces one or more input rules that constrain the values and/or format of the input, and/or unstructured data, such as natural language text, audio, or transcriptions).
Baker and Baruch are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, summarizing content.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Baker and Baruch before him or her, to combine the teachings of Baker and Baruch. The rationale for doing so would have been to summarize content using various forms of summarization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Baker and Baruch to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (USPUB 20150339288) in view of Baruch (USPUB 20240354503 filed Jun. 26, 2023 which claims Foreign Priority to French Pat. App. No: 2304014 filed Apr. 21, 2023) and further in view of Kurzweil (USPUB 20100318362 A1).
Claim 13:
Baker and Baruch teach every feature of claim 2.
Baker, by itself, does not seem to completely teach accept selection of a type of voice for reading out the summary sentence; and output audio data obtained by reading out in accordance with an accepted voice type.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Kurzweil.
Kurzweil teaches accept selection of a type of voice for reading out the summary sentence; and output audio data obtained by reading out in accordance with an accepted voice type (Claim 6).
Baker and Kurzweil are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, presenting content.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Baker and Kurzweil before him or her, to combine the teachings of Baker and Kurzweil. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide a user with options on how they would prefer their content output.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Baker and Kurzweil to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (USPUB 20150339288) in view of Baruch (USPUB 20240354503 filed Jun. 26, 2023 which claims Foreign Priority to French Pat. App. No: 2304014 filed Apr. 21, 2023) and further in view of Linden (USPUB 20050138049 A1).
Claim 4:
Baker, by itself, does not seem to completely teach acquire information regarding a degree of attention of each of the article on an Internet; and display titles of the articles in a display order determined based on the degree of attention.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Linden.
Linden teaches acquire information regarding a degree of attention of each of the article on an Internet; and display titles of the articles in a display order determined based on the degree of attention (0013: When a user visits a news web site to see the news, the articles usually are displayed in a predetermined order, often by recency, popularity, or in an order manually determined by an editor).
Baker and Linden are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, presenting content.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Baker and Linden before him or her, to combine the teachings of Baker and Linden. The rationale for doing so would have been to present content in a desired manner to a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Baker and Linden to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claim 5:
Baker, by itself, does not seem to completely teach acquire information regarding a degree of attention of each of the article on an Internet; and display titles of the articles in a display order determined based on the degree of attention.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Linden.
Linden teaches acquire information regarding a degree of attention of each of the article on an Internet; and display titles of the articles in a display order determined based on the degree of attention (0013: When a user visits a news web site to see the news, the articles usually are displayed in a predetermined order, often by recency, popularity, or in an order manually determined by an editor).
Baker and Linden are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, presenting content.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Baker and Linden before him or her, to combine the teachings of Baker and Linden. The rationale for doing so would have been to present content in a desired manner to a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Baker and Linden to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claim 7:
Baker, by itself, does not seem to completely teach in a case where a display region for one of the titles is selected, display the relevant summary sentence.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Baruch.
Baruch teaches in a case where a display region for one of the titles is selected, display the relevant summary sentence (0194: the user simply copied a link from another application, inserted the copied link into the post creation box, and selected a generate compelling summary mechanism, and the thought starter generation system auto-generated the content).
Baker and Baruch are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, summarizing content.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Baker and Baruch before him or her, to combine the teachings of Baker and Baruch. The rationale for doing so would have been to summarize content using various forms of summarization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Baker and Baruch to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claim 8:
Baker, by itself, does not seem to completely teach in a case where a display region for one of the titles is selected, display the relevant summary sentence.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Baruch.
Baruch teaches in a case where a display region for one of the titles is selected, display the relevant summary sentence (0194: the user simply copied a link from another application, inserted the copied link into the post creation box, and selected a generate compelling summary mechanism, and the thought starter generation system auto-generated the content).
Baker and Baruch are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, summarizing content.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Baker and Baruch before him or her, to combine the teachings of Baker and Baruch. The rationale for doing so would have been to summarize content using various forms of summarization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Baker and Baruch to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 9-12, 14, 17 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter of claims 3, 17 and 20:
Baker, by itself, does not seem to completely teach extract a keyword related to cybersecurity from the summary sentence; generate an image matching a content of the summary sentence using an image generation model based on the extracted keyword; and display the generated image on a same screen as the summary sentence.
Baruch teaches generate an image matching a content of the summary sentence using an image generation model (0104) and display the generated image on a same screen as the summary sentence (Fig 4D).
Neither Baker nor Baruch, alone nor in combination, teach extract a keyword related to cybersecurity from the summary sentence, generate an image matching a content of the summary sentence using an image generation model based on the extracted keyword.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter of claims 10-12:
Neither Baker nor Baruch, nor any other cited reference, neither alone nor in combination, teach the features of generate a summary sentence in which a line feed is performed at a position of a punctuation mark for each predetermined number of characters.
Note
The Examiner cites particular columns, line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed in the attached PTOL-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED-IBRAHIM ZUBERI whose telephone number is (571)270-7761. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-6 Fri: 7-12/OFF.
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, Steph Hong can be reached on (571) 272-4124. 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.
/MOHAMMED H ZUBERI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights