Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the 10/09/2024 communication(s). As per the claims filed 10/09/2024:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 16 is/are independent claim(s).
Note Regarding Prior Art
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. 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.
Note Regarding AIA Status
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 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.
Double Patenting
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12141219 (hereinafter: The Patent ‘219). in view of Walker et al (US PG Pub No. 2012/0259832).
Claim 6:
As per claim 6, Patent ‘219 discloses a method to determine if an image linked in a file of a web page of a website is a broken resource[claim 1, col 19, lines 42-43] where the patent discloses identifying a presence of a broken resource link, the resource can be an image;
in response to the image being broken, identify a replacement image from a database of images based on visual identification technology configured to automatically identify the replacement image in an absence of image keywords or image metadata [claim 1, col 19, lines 44-55, claim 3, col 19, lines 60-63]; and
Patent ‘219 failed to specifically disclose display the replacement image in place of the broken resource on the web page.
Walker, in the same place of content replacement discloses this limitation in that (See Walker, Figure 9, and paragraphs 0082-0085, describing displaying the updated webpage to the user via a display device).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the patent’s broken resource replacement teachings to display the replacement content in place of the broken resource as disclosed by Walker. The motivation would have been to visually present content to the user in order to expedite editing.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11669582 (hereinafter: The Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent’s claims anticipate all limitations as shown below.
Claim 16:
As per claim 16, Patent ‘582 discloses a method to generate a resource metadata database including a plurality of resources and a plurality of alternate texts corresponding to the plurality of resources [claim 1, col 19, lines 36-38];
generate a keyword database comprising a plurality of keywords extracted from the plurality of alternate texts by applying natural language processing to the plurality of alternate texts [Claim 1, col 19, lines 39-40];
determine a link to a first resource in a web page is broken[Claim 1, col 19, lines 43-44];
automatically select a second resource, the second resource of a same type as the first resource, from a resource pivot table including the generated keyword database to replace the first resource in the web page[Claim 1, col 19, lines 45-48];
update the web page with a link to the second resource in place of the link to the first resource[Claim 1, col 19, lines 49-50]; and
display the updated web page to a user[Claim 1, col 19, lines 50].
Official Notice is taken that it was well known and desire to implement a computer method with a/on system and a computer storage medium to generate resource metadata. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the computer-readable storage medium of the instant application by using the method and system of Patent ‘582 because it was a well-known and desired way to implement such steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites: “determine if an image linked in a file of a web page of a website is a broken resource; in response to the image being broken, identify a replacement image from a database of images based on visual identification technology configured to automatically identify the replacement image in an absence of image keywords or image metadata;” The claim language suggests the link (image resource) is broken. One of ordinary skill in the art of web development would understand that a broken image resource link results in the original image not being displayed because the source of that image is not reachable. Instead, a standard icon (broken image icon) is displayed or text that says the image is not available. It follows that if an image cannot be displayed because of its unavailable status, then it would be not possible to identify a replacement image from a database of images based on “visual identification technology” since there is nothing to visually compare the other images in the database to.
Additionally, it then becomes unclear what “visual identification technology” refers to since visually comparing images is not possible.
Claim 7 recites: “wherein the visual identification technology is trained with a plurality of broken images and plurality of replacement images associated with each of the plurality of broken images”. It is clearly stated that visual identification technology is trained with a plurality of broken images. It is unclear what a “broken image” encompasses since independent claim 6 makes it clear that the image itself is not broken or incomplete but that the resource of the image is broken (as in a broken link as it is well known in the art). For the same reasons as stated above, such technology would not be able to compare broken-resource images since the actual visual image for such file would not be available. Claim 7 is indefinite.
Claim 9 recites: “wherein the web pages referring to the similar topic are identified based on one or more of text, images, media, and metadata”. Claim 6 specifically recites: “visual identification technology configured to automatically identify the replacement image in an absence of image keywords or image metadata” it is then unclear how if there is an absence of image keywords, or image metadata, this information can be used to train visual identification as disclosed on claims 8-9.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the visual identification technology is a machine learning model trained using meta tags of images of the web page and configured to identify replacement images with similar meta tags”. The claim assumes there are other images in the webpage that have no broken image links. In a case where there are no other images in the webpage, or in the case where the only image is the image with the broken resource link, the claim would not yield the claimed “visual identification technology”
Claims 8, 10-13, 15 are rejected based on their dependency on rejected base claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In summary, Claim 1 recites a “a computer-readable storage medium” storing instructions that perform various functions. In the Specification of the present application, the “computer readable medium” is not expressly defined as encompassing only statutory embodiments, Therefore the Examiner is interpreting the medium to include both, statutory and non-statutory embodiments (i.e. transitory signals).Thus, the broadest, reasonable interpretation of “computer readable medium” encompasses non-statutory subject matter (transmission media) that is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. Accordingly, Claim 1 fails to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 6, 16, are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 2-5, 7-15, 17-20 are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by David M. Lee et al.(US Patent No: US 11170424; Date of Patent: 11/09/2021)(hereinafter: Lee)
Claim 1:
As per independent claim 1, Lee discloses a computer-readable storage medium including an executable program stored thereon, the executable program configured to cause a computer to: evaluate metadata for a resource linked in a file of a web page [[col 3, lines 55-61] the method may include analyzing the webpage, via a trained machine learning algorithm, to determine whether one or more images on the webpage correspond to one or more product images and whether the webpage includes the associated product metadata corresponding to the one or more product images.];
in response to the resource without metadata, automatically generate metadata for the resource by processing the resource with one or more deep learning models trained to classify resources [[Col 2, lines 8-21] In response to determining that one or more images on the webpage correspond to one or more product images and that the one or more product images are missing their associated product metadata, … the system may utilize the trained machine learning algorithm to probabilistically determine the associated product metadata corresponding to the one or more product images before prompting the user to manually identify the relevant fields on the webpage. In some instances, some fields may be prefilled based on a best approximation provided by the trained machine learning algorithm…[col 19, lines 15-18] The trained machine learning algorithm may provide a best approximation of the product metadata such that some of the one or more relevant fields may be prefilled.] and
save the generated metadata to a database [[col 11, lines 7-11]the system may save the first ingested product image and its associated product metadata into a product repository. The product repository may be stored on server 420 and/or user device 430 (discussed below in reference to FIGS. 4-5) for the user's convenient access].
Claim 2:
As per claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Lee discloses wherein the generated metadata is alternate text or one or more keywords associated with the resource [[col 19, lines 15-18] The trained machine learning algorithm may provide a best approximation of the product metadata such that some of the one or more relevant fields may be prefilled [col 13, lines 17-21] the system may use the trained machine learning algorithm to scan text in proximity to the one or more product images to determine whether the text includes metadata directly associated with the one or more product images.]
Claim 4:
As per claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Lee discloses wherein the database is included in a server and server determines a replacement resource for a missing resource using the database [[Col 11, lines 9-12], [col 14, lines 41-50] repository stored in server].
Claim 5:
As per claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Lee discloses wherein the resource is an image [[col 3, lines 55-61] the method may include analyzing the webpage, via a trained machine learning algorithm, to determine whether one or more images on the webpage correspond to one or more product images and whether the webpage includes the associated product metadata corresponding to the one or more product images.];.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Nedialko Dimitrov (US PG Pub No. 20210256568; Filed: 2/10/2021)(hereinafter: Dimitrov).
Claim 3:
As per claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Lee discloses using machine learning algorithms to search for metadata but failed to specifically disclose wherein the one or more deep learning models are natural language models and the generated metadata is a natural language description of the resource based on one or more keyword classifications.
Dimitrov, in the same field of generating contextualized metadata for content discloses this limitation in that [[0024] The webserver 101 stores some or all of the webpage data into a corpus database 105. The webserver 101 trains the machine-learning model on the corpus of webpage data to identify and generate various statistical associations between terms, phrases, metadata, or other information indicating the nature or context of each particular webpage. The machine-learning model determines co-occurrences and other statistical contextual data for various types of webpage data in the corpus database 105. For instance, the webserver 101 can apply any number of natural language processing and vectorization machine-learning algorithms on the content or metadata of webpages to generate feature vectors for various corpus terms in order to extract embeddings representing various statistical measures of the corpus terms].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee’s machine learning algorithms to use natural language models to generate metadata based one or more keywords as disclosed by Dimitrov. The motivation for doing so effectively and efficiently specifying context for collocation and presentation (0005).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6-20 are allowed over the prior art but are rejected under double patenting 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 101 as set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claims 16-20, independent claim 16 recites the same subject matter as previously allowed claim 1 in patent number 11669582.
As per claims 6-15 reasons for allowance are held in abeyance until prosecution of all remaining claims has closed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- Teare (U.S. Patent 6,151,624) discloses navigating network resources based on metadata.
- Saraee (U.S. Publication 2022/0198779 A1) discloses automating benchwork generation using neural networks for image on video selection.
- Rose (U.S. Publication 2015/0193389 A1) discloses presenting updated hyperlink information on a webpage.
- Myers (U.S. Publication 2013/0019028 A1) discloses a workflow system for creating, distributing, and publishing content.
- Chalemin (U.S. Publication 2008/0263193 A1) discloses automatically providing
a web resource for a broken web link.
- Toppenberg (U.S. Publication 2007/0168465 A1) discloses web page
optimization systems.
All the pertinent references were cited in the IDS filed 10/09/2024.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD CORTES whose telephone number is (571)270-1383. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott T Baderman can be reached on (571)272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOWARD CORTES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights