CTNF 18/911,005 CTNF 88914 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory non-obvious type double patenting over corresponding claims as mapped in table below of U.S. Patent No. 10469424. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim same subject matter. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, mapping of claims as follows: Instant Application No. 18/911,005 US Patent 10469424 Claim 1 maps to Combination of Claims 1&6 Claim 11 maps to Combination of Claims 15&18 Claims 4 and 14 maps to Claim 11 Claims 5 and 15 maps to Claim 12 Claims 6 and 16 maps to Claim 13 Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory non-obvious type double patenting over corresponding claims as mapped in table below of U.S. Patent No. 12132692. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim same subject matter. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, mapping of claims as follows: Instant Application No. 18/911,005 US Patent 12132692 Claim 1 maps to Combination of Claims 1&6 Claim 11 maps to Combination of Claims 15&18 Claims 4 and 14 maps to Claim 11 Claims 5 and 15 maps to Claim 12 Claims 6 and 16 maps to Claim 13 Claims 7 and 17 maps to Claim 14 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-fti Claim s 1 and 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shuster et al. (US 20110238662, from Applicant’s Information Disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2024) in view of Berk et al. (US 20140133639, from Applicant’s Information Disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2024) . Regarding claim 1, Shuster discloses, a method of balancing network traffic load to reduce latency of network traffic data ( Par. 0085, a process for testing Web pages that appear on a search result, and removing or flagging pages which are unresponsive or slow to respond, the ranking of the results is preferably adjusted to reflect the site response times, for example, the ranking of pages that generated quick responses are adjusted upwards. The page testing process prevents users from wasting time attempting to load Web pages that are obsolete, located on Web sites with unresponsive or slow servers, i.e. removing or flagging pages which are unresponsive or slow to respond is related to balancing network traffic by not generating unnecessary network traffic from user device to server over network method of ranking webpage links with faster response upwards relates to reducing latency of network traffic data and balancing the network load in favor of working webpages ), comprising: pinging, by a quality sensor component and via the asynchronous network-based communication channel, the content provider device corresponding to the messaging identifier ( Par. 0017, the results screening and ranking (i.e. parsing and search result page (i.e. online document being result page that is parsed or screened for analysis), par. 0020, results pages includes a process for providing links to a set of related information exchange groups, preferably Webrooms, par. 0046, exchange group includes chat rooms and webrooms, i.e. parsing search result page to determine link (i.e. identifier) to chatroom or webroom (i.e. messaging identifier = link or URL for chatroom or webroom). Par. 0089, Apparatus and System for Hosting Information Exchange Groups on a Wide Area Network" referenced above. A Webroom provides a convenient and highly interactive way for multiple users to exchange information over a wide area network, i.e. webroom are hosted on provider hosting device hosting the webroom that user computing device communicates with over network 102, as shown in fig.1. Par. 0085, the results screening and ranking step includes a process (i.e. process for testing = quality sensor component) for testing Web pages that appear on a search result, and removing or flagging pages which are unresponsive or slow to respond. At step 706, the system tests each result by "pinging" the server (i.e. URL pointing to provider device related to webroom or chatroom URL on search result page) on which each page is located. In addition to or instead of pinging, the system may test each result by sending a short message requesting a response (i.e., a "call"), to each Web site hosting a page listed on the results list. ); receiving, by the quality sensor component, from the content provider device, a response to the pinging (Par. 0085, The response request may comprise, for example, a request for the return of a page header ); verifying, by the quality sensor component based on the response, whether the content provider device is operational to receive electronic messages over the asynchronous network-based communication channel ( Par. 0085, If no response is received, the page may no longer exist or the server may not be responding ); and authorizing, by the quality sensor component and responsive to verification of the content provider device, a content generator component to insert the messaging identifier in one or more instances of an online content item ( Par. 0085, If no response is received, the page may no longer exist or the server may not be responding. Pages that generate no response at all are removed from the results list, or flagged as unresponsive, At step 714, pages that generate a response within the maximum acceptable time, but not within a second, shorter period or desired response time, are identified as slow pages. At step 716, slow pages are flagged as slow, or removed from the results list. i.e. when response is received and within desired response time is verified, keep or insert the URL for page on search result ). Shuster does not disclose, parsing, by an online document analysis component, an online document to determine a messaging identifier used to communicate over an asynchronous network-based communication channel between a computing device and a content provider device , wherein the messaging identifier identifies the content provider device ; Berk discloses, parsing, by an online document analysis component, an online document to determine a messaging identifier used to communicate over an asynchronous network-based communication channel between a computing device and a content provider device ( par. 0043, the web page is parsed so as to detect these telephone number identifiers, analyzing for any other information that establishes the context of the telephone number such as publisher identifier. Par. 0044, When a possible telephone number is detected, all data corresponding to the telephone number, including the actual number and any contextual information (e.g., cookies, URL, domain name, session identifier, publisher identifier) can be identified and extracted. Par. 0022, the term "publisher" is intended to refer to any entity that provides web content and/or applications. Accordingly, publishers 160 include server publishers that specify the contents, Par. 0078, fig. 6C discloses telephone number can be used to send text message using SMS channel or cellular network. i.e. telephone number can be used to initiate text message between client device and publisher device/server using SMS channel or cellular network ), wherein the messaging identifier identifies the content provider device ( par. 0043-0045, analyzing for any other information that establishes the context of the telephone number such as publisher identifier. When a possible telephone number is detected, all data corresponding to the telephone number, including the actual number and any contextual information (e.g., cookies, URL, domain name, session identifier, publisher identifier, i.e. phone number also identifies associated information such as published identifier such as website link as shown in fig. 2, identifying associated website URL = identifies hosting server) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shuster, by teaching of parsing online document to determine a messaging identifier used to communicate between a first computing device and a content provider device and the messaging identifier identifying the content provider device and used to initiate a text message or a chat, as taught by Berk , to identify important information in search results such as messaging identifier for communication and interaction in form of URL and phone number (See Berk , par. 0002 and 0019, 0044). Regarding claim 11, Shuster in view of Berk meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1 . 07-21-fti Claim s 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shuster et al. (US 20110238662, from Applicant’s Information Disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2024) in view of Berk et al. (US 20140133639, from Applicant’s Information Disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2024), in further view of Macbeth et al. (US 20050193225, from Applicant’s Information Disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2024) . Regarding claim 2, The method of claim 1, Shuster in view of Berk does not disclose, further comprising: determining, by the quality sensor component, based on a characteristic of an electronic message of the electronic messages, whether a quality of the asynchronous network-based communication channel meets a predetermined quality threshold; wherein the authorizing is further responsive to determining that the quality meets the predetermined quality threshold . Macbeth discloses, further comprising: determining, by the quality sensor component, based on a characteristic of an electronic message of the electronic messages, whether a quality of the asynchronous network-based communication channel meets a predetermined quality threshold; wherein the authorizing is further responsive to determining that the quality meets the predetermined quality threshold (par. 0015 discloses to manage and control potential interruption in delivery of content, control engine 108 (i.e. control engine senses the quality of connections, therefore has, a quality sensor component) monitors the health of the and status of the services and connection breakdown, control engine 108 receives data from a network monitor 114 (i.e. intermediate device that intercepts the message (as disclosed in par. 0016 monitor or listens to TCP/IP ports to collect network data, i.e. monitoring or listening to TCP/IP communication = understanding the characteristics of electronic message) and used by control engine 108, therefore control engine 108 determines based on intercepted electronic network messages, determines whether there is a connection breakdown). Par. 0021 discloses the network status data 110 reported by network monitor 114 or other tools or resources may be examined to determine whether network fault or other triggering conditions may exist, for example to determine whether a fault or other threshold has been met, when threshold has been met, triggering conditions are reported, i.e. when latency to websites had met threshold condition, here meeting threshold condition indicates that latency time is greater than set threshold, par. 0022, when triggering conditions are detected, deactivate, remove, suspend or otherwise manage the impact of that failure on the set of features 116.For example in a search results page, an unavailable link may be ghosted out while still presenting other search results or other fields). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shuster in view of Berk, determining by the quality sensor component, based on a characteristic of an electronic message of the electronic messages, whether a quality of the asynchronous network-based communication channel meets a predetermined quality threshold; wherein the authorizing is further responsive to determining that the quality meets the predetermined quality threshold, as taught by Macbeth , to manage and control potential interruption in delivery of content to create reliable operation of content delivery service (See Macbeth , par. 0006 and 0016). Regarding claim 3, The method of claim 2, Shuster in view of Berk in further view of Macbeth further discloses, wherein the authorizing occurs in a first instance, the method further comprising: in a second instance, by the quality sensor component and responsive to determining that the quality does not meet the predetermined quality threshold, blocking the content generator component from inserting the messaging identifier in the one or more instances of the online content item (Macbeth par. 0018, service 106 is controlled to dynamically adjust to remove the link the site to prevent users from attempting to link to that site, i.e. service 106 blocks the links from getting inserted in generated content prior sending it to user device, Par. 0007, the end user or users accessing the affected resource, such as a search page, may consequently continue to view and receive results of the service, but with the failed component removed from the output or user interface, here term “users” continue to receive search results indicates that future instances (i.e. in a second instance) of search results to other users will be presented without links which are non-functioning ). Regarding claim 4. The method of claim 2, Shuster further discloses, wherein the characteristic includes a response time from the content provider device, the method including: determining, by the quality sensor component, the response time from the content provider device; and determining, by the quality sensor component, the quality based at least on the response time from the content provider device ( Par. 0085, the system waits for and records the time of response from each server, for a set period of time comprising a maximum acceptable response time. Pages that generate no response at all are removed from the results list, or flagged as unresponsive, at step 712. At step 714, pages that generate a response within the maximum acceptable time, but not within a second, shorter period or desired response time, are identified as slow pages. At step 716, slow pages are flagged as slow, or removed from the results list. At step 718, the ranking of the results is preferably adjusted to reflect the site response times, for example, the ranking of pages that generated quick responses are adjusted upwards, i.e. based on response time, determining to rank the page, ranking higher or lower means based on quality of response being higher or lower ). Regarding claim 12, Shuster in view of Berk in further view of Macbeth meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 2. Regarding claim 13, Shuster in view of Berk in further view of Macbeth meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 3. Regarding claim 14, Shuster meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 4 . 07-21-fti Claim s 5, 6, 15, and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shuster et al. (US 20110238662, from Applicant’s Information Disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2024) in view of Berk et al. (US 20140133639, from Applicant’s Information Disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2024), in further view of Macbeth et al. (US 20050193225, from Applicant’s Information Disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2024), in further view of ISTRATI (US 20180351897, from Applicant’s Information Disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2024) . Regarding claim 5, The method of claim 2, Shuster in view of Berk in further view of Macbeth does not disclose, wherein the characteristic includes an imbalance metric of the asynchronous network-based communication channel, the method including: determining, by the quality sensor component, the imbalance metric based on a number of electronic messages sent by the computing device and a number of electronic messages sent by the content provider device within a time interval; and determining, by the quality sensor component, the quality based at least on the imbalance metric. ISTRATI discloses, wherein the characteristic includes an imbalance metric of the asynchronous network-based communication channel (par. 0018 discloses, detect spam SMS messages, unsolicited repeated SMS messages sent to subscriber, i.e. characteristics of the electronic message channel is one sided not balanced where user device is receiving messages without user device sending any messages), determining, by the quality sensor component, the imbalance metric based on a number of electronic messages sent by the computing device and a number of electronic messages sent by the content provider device within a time interval (par. 0018 discloses unsolicited repeated SMS messages sent to subscribers, i.e. messages are unsolicited = number of message sent by subscriber device is zero, par. 0049 discloses, The first spam threshold may for instance be 2 SMS messages that must be received within the first time threshold, e.g. 1 minute, par. 0074 discloses messages constitutes google to person, Facebook to person, i.e. number of messages from content provider to a computing device of subscriber received within one minute is two while number of subscriber device sending message is zero, that determines that there is an imbalance in message communication); determining, by the quality sensor component, the quality based at least on the imbalance metric (par. 0049 discloses The first spam threshold may for instance be 2 SMS messages that must be received within the first time threshold, e.g. 1 minute, SMS messages that generate the spam key value will instantly be identified and reported as spam such that blocking sources of such SMS traffic, i.e. quality of message provider is determined as being spam generator based threshold number of message received compared to message sent). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shuster in view of Berk in further view of Macbeth, by teaching of determining quality of network connection based on determining imbalance metric message compared to set threshold, as taught by ISTRATI , to adequately detects and reports spam messages and block the spam sources therefore helping with determining quality of content source or connection with content source (See ISTRATI , par. 0004, 0007). Regarding claim 6, The method of claim 2, Shuster in view of Berk in further view of Macbeth does not disclose, wherein the characteristic includes a spam metric, the method including: determining, by the quality sensor component, the spam metric based on a number of electronic messages transmitted by the content provider device over a time interval in which the computing device does not transmit an electronic message to the content provider device; and determining, by the quality sensor component, the quality based at least on the spam metric. ISTRATI discloses, wherein the characteristic includes a spam metric (par. 0018 discloses, detect spam SMS messages, unsolicited repeated SMS messages sent to subscriber, i.e. characteristics of the electronic message includes spam metrics such as unsolicited repeated SMS messages sent to subscriber), determining, by the quality sensor component, the spam metric based on a number of electronic messages transmitted by the content provider device over a time interval in which the computing device does not transmit an electronic message to the content provider device (par. 0018 discloses unsolicited repeated SMS messages sent to subscribers, i.e. messages are unsolicited = number of message sent by subscriber device is zero, par. 0049 discloses, The first spam threshold may for instance be 2 SMS messages that must be received within the first time threshold, e.g. 1 minute, par. 0074 discloses messages constitutes google to person, Facebook to person, i.e. number of messages from content provider to a computing device of subscriber received within one minute is two while number of subscriber device sending message is zero, that determines that there is an imbalance in message communication); determining, by the quality sensor component, the quality based at least on the spam metric (par. 0049 discloses The first spam threshold may for instance be 2 SMS messages that must be received within the first time threshold, e.g. 1 minute, SMS messages that generate the spam key value will instantly be identified and reported as spam such that blocking sources of such SMS traffic, i.e. quality of message provider is determined as being spam generator based threshold number of message received compared to message sent). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shuster in view of Berk in further view of Macbeth, by teaching of determining quality of network connection based on determining spam metric message compared to set threshold, as taught by ISTRATI , to adequately detects and reports spam messages and block the spam sources therefore helping with determining quality of content source or connection with content source (See ISTRATI , par. 0004, 0007). Regarding claim 15, Shuster in view of Berk in further view of Macbeth in further view of ISTRATI meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 5. Regarding claim 16, Shuster in view of Berk in further view of Macbeth in further view of ISTRATI meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 6 . 07-21-fti Claim s 7 and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shuster et al. (US 20110238662, from Applicant’s Information Disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2024) in view of Berk et al. (US 20140133639, from Applicant’s Information Disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2024), in further view of Macbeth et al. (US 20050193225, from Applicant’s Information Disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2024), in further view of Barak et al. (US 20160360466, from Applicant’s Information Disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2024) . Regarding claim 7, The method of claim 2, Shuster in view of Berk in further view of Macbeth does not disclose, wherein the characteristic includes a sentiment metric, the method including: determining, by the quality sensor component, the sentiment metric based on parsing the electronic message and a plurality of electronic messages transmitted between the content provider device and the computing device; and determining, by the quality sensor component, the quality based at least on the sentiment metric. Barak discloses, wherein the characteristic includes a sentiment metric (par. 0056 discloses analyzing the message to determine whether text corresponds to a polarity indication, e.g., positive polarity, negative polarity, neutral polarity, anger polarity, disgrace polarity, frustration polarity, i.e. user sentiment matric) ; determining, by the quality sensor component, the sentiment metric based on parsing the electronic message and a plurality of electronic messages transmitted between the content provider device and the computing device (par. 0056 discloses, analyzing the message can include parsing the text included in the message); determining, by the quality sensor component, the quality based at least on the sentiment metric (par. 0056 discloses, determining whether the text (e.g., text data) corresponds to a polarity indication (e.g., positive polarity, negative polarity, neutral polarity, anger polarity, disgrace polarity, frustration polarity, and other suitable polarities), here polarity of sentiment starting from positive sentiment, neutral, to frustration indicates a hierarchical categorization structure, par. 0076 discloses based on satisfaction of condition (i.e. regarding connectivity channel) is determined based on detecting characteristics of message content indicative of user frustration or dissatisfaction, i.e. user sentiment matching with frustration polarity among all the sentiment polarity indicates the quality of network channel) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shuster in view of Berk in further view of Macbeth, by teaching of the characteristic includes a sentiment metric, determining, the sentiment metric based on parsing the electronic message determining, the quality based at least on the sentiment metric, as taught by Barak , to determining user satisfaction with condition of connectivity based on sentiment metric determined from communicated messages (See Barak , par. 0075-0076). Regarding claim 17, Shuster in view of Berk in further view of Macbeth in further view of Barak meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 7 . 07-21-fti Claim s 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shuster et al. (US 20110238662, from Applicant’s Information Disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2024) in view of Berk et al. (US 20140133639, from Applicant’s Information Disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2024), in further view of Papineni (US 20130166578, from Applicant’s Information Disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2024) . Regarding claim 8, The method of claim 1, Shuster in view of Berk discloses, wherein the parsing of the online document includes: determining, by the online document analysis determining the messaging identifier ( par. 0043, the web page is parsed so as to detect these telephone number identifiers, analyzing for any other information that establishes the context of the telephone number such as publisher identifier. Par. 0044, When a possible telephone number is detected, all data corresponding to the telephone number, including the actual number and any contextual information (e.g., cookies, URL, domain name, session identifier, publisher identifier) can be identified and extracted. Par. 0022, the term "publisher" is intended to refer to any entity that provides web content and/or applications. Accordingly, publishers 160 include server publishers that specify the contents, Par. 0078, fig. 6C discloses telephone number can be used to send text message using SMS channel or cellular network. i.e. telephone number can be used to initiate text message between client device and publisher device/server using SMS channel or cellular network ). Shuster in view of Berk does not disclose, wherein the parsing of the online document includes: determining, by the online document analysis component a prominence score of at least a portion of subject matter in the online document; wherein determining the identifier is based on the prominence score. Papineni discloses, comprising an online document analysis component (par. 0016 discloses, a web crawler) to: determining, by the online document analysis component a prominence score of at least a portion of subject matter in the online document (par. 0016 discloses web crawler (i.e. parsing webpages) analyzing using natural language processing tools to identify phrases, giving scores based on how many times and which positions (i.e. applying rule to determine prominent phrases) each appears in the news article) ; and wherein determining the identifier is based on the prominence score (par. 0016 discloses top scoring entities and noun phrases can be used as a set of “tags” for the article (i.e. applying identifier) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shuster in view of Berk, by teaching of a rule to determine prominence score of subject matter in parsed website and determine identifier for the subject matter, as taught by Papineni , to provide the ability to search for and retrieve the content to be used by search engine (See Papineni , par. 0002). Regarding claim 9, The method of claim 8, Shuster in view of Berk further view of Papineni further discloses, wherein the messaging identifier is a candidate messaging identifier with a highest prominence score of a plurality of candidate messaging identifiers in the online document (Berk Par. 0043, telephone numbers are tagged or otherwise marked by a server publisher, such as Yelp.com.RTM., Citysearch.com.RTM., or Yellowpages.com.RTM., such that a browser or other application that displays a telephone number is able to easily interpret the displayed digits as a telephone number. In such instances, telephone numbers are denoted, tagged, or otherwise marked-up using a mark-up language (e.g., XML) and the web page is parsed so as to detect these telephone number identifiers. The entirety of the web page may also be analyzed for any information that establishes the context of the telephone number and/or the web page in which the telephone number is displayed, i.e. messaging identifier is denoted, tagged, or otherwise marked-up using a mark-up language, therefore it has been identified to have higher prominence than other information on webpage or search result page ). Regarding claim 10, The method of claim 8, Shuster in view of Berk further view of Papineni further discloses, wherein the determining of the prominence score include: applying, by the online document analysis component and via a trained machine learning model, a heuristic rule to the at least the portion of the subject matter to determine the prominence score (Papineni par. 0016 discloses web crawler (i.e. parsing webpages) analyzing using natural language processing tools (i.e. using machine learning tools) to identify phrases, giving scores based on how many times and which positions (i.e. applying rule to determine prominent phrases) each appears in the news article, par. 0016 discloses top scoring entities and noun phrases can be used as a set of “tags” for the article (i.e. applying identifier) ) . Regarding claim 18, Shuster in view of Berk further view of Papineni meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 8. Regarding claim 19, Shuster in view of Berk further view of Papineni meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 9. Regarding claim 20, Shuster in view of Berk further view of Papineni meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 10. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKSHAY DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM. 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, JOHN W MILLER can be reached at (571)272-7353. 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. /A.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2422 /JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 2 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 3 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 4 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 5 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 6 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 7 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 8 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 9 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 10 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 11 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 12 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 13 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 14 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 15 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 16 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 17 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 18 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 19 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 20 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 21 Art Unit: 2422 Application/Control Number: 18/911,005 Page 22 Art Unit: 2422
Prosecution Insights