DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are pending in this application.
Claim rejections 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Claim rejections 35 USC 102 are withdrawn.
Claim rejections 35 USC 103 are withdrawn.
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 1-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 18 and 21:
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites “A method”. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore is a process.
Claim 18 recites “A system”. The claim recites the system comprising one or more processors and memory and therefore is a machine.
Claim 21 recites “At least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions” and therefore is a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 1, 18 and 21 recite the limitations “populating”, “populating” and “populating” which specifically recite “populating a first subtree of leaf nodes of a hierarchical data structure with content extracted or otherwise derived from one or more digital content items;” “populating a first branch node of a first tier of the hierarchical data structure above the subtree of leaf nodes with the first summary of the content used to populate the first subtree of leaf nodes;” and “populating a third branch node of a second tier of the hierarchical data structure with the third summary of the first and second summaries;” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other reciting one or more “processors” and a “memory”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “populating”, “populating” and “populating” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper generating a first subtree of leaf nodes of a hierarchical data structure with content extracted from one or more content items, generating a first branch node of a first tier of the hierarchical data structure above the subtree of leaf nodes with a first summary of the content used to populate the first subtree of leaf nodes, and generating a third branch node of a second tier of the hierarchical data structure with a third summary of the first and second summaries. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims 1, 18 and 21 recite the additional elements “using one or more generative models, processing data indicative of the content used to populate the first subtree of leaf nodes to generate first tier output, wherein the first tier output includes a first summary of the content used to populate the first subtree of leaf nodes;” “using one or more of the generative models, processing data indicative of the first summary, in conjunction with data indicative of a second summary used to populate another branch node of the first tier, to generate second tier output, wherein the second tier output includes a third summary of the first and second summaries, and wherein the second summary describes content used to populate a second subtree of leaf nodes of the hierarchical data structure that is disparate from the first subtree, and wherein the second tier output includes a third summary that summarizes both of the first and second summaries;” and “providing a screen reader interface with data representing the hierarchical data structure, wherein the data representing the hierarchical data structure is operable by the screen reader interface to facilitate navigation of the hierarchical data structure.” The limitations amount to requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and a field of use or technological environment, such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results (See MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using one or more “processors” and a “memory” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “retrieving the one or more digital content items, wherein the one or more digital content items are responsive to a search query.” The limitation amounts to well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions, e.g. storing and retrieving information in memory (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “populating the first branch node with selectable indications of content used to populate leaf nodes of the first subtree” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “assigning, to respective leaf nodes of the first subtree, a plurality of tags derived from the content used to populate the first subtree of nodes” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “the plurality of tags are contained in the first tier output” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is dependent on the claim 4 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional element “determining that one or more of the tags has been selected” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim also recites the additional elements “assembling an input prompt, wherein the input prompt includes content extracted or otherwise derived from a subset of digital content items of the plurality of digital content items, wherein the subset of digital content items are assigned tags of the plurality of tags that have been selected, and wherein the input prompt excludes content of other digital content items of the plurality of digital content items outside of the subset; and processing the input prompt using one or more of the generative models to generate a fourth summary of the content extracted or otherwise derived from the subset of digital content items of the plurality of digital content items.” The limitations amount to a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception includes collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results (See MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “the content used to populate the second subtree of leaf nodes of the hierarchical data structure is extracted or derived from one or more of the digital content items” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional elements “assembling, as a first tier input prompt: data indicative of one or more of the digital content items, and a request to group content of the one or more digital content items into two or more clusters; and processing the first tier input prompt using one or more of the generative models to generate the first tier output.” The limitations amount to a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception includes collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results (See MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is dependent on the claim 8 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “the first subtree of leaf nodes is populated with content extracted or otherwise derived from content of a first cluster of the two or more clusters, and the second subtree of leaf nodes is populated with content extracted or otherwise derived from content of a second cluster of the two or more clusters” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is dependent on the claim 8 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “the request includes a specification of how many clusters are to be created” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is dependent on the claim 10 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “the specification is generated automatically based on a length or measure of complexity of the content of one or more of the digital content items” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional element “the data representing the hierarchical data structure comprises a markup language document that represents the hierarchical data structure,” The limitation amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also recites the additional elements “assembling the markup language document; and transmitting the markup language document to a computing device that implements the screen reader interface; wherein the markup language document includes client-side scripting language that is executable on the computing device that implements the screen reader interface to navigate the hierarchical data structure.” The limitations amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions, e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “populating the first subtree of leaf nodes comprises segmenting information from a single document of the one or more digital content items into multiple different leaf nodes” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 14 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “the data representing the hierarchical data structure is operable to render, on a touchscreen, a high-contrast visualization of the hierarchical data structure that is navigable using the touchscreen.” The limitation amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional elements “the data representing the hierarchical data structure is operable to render, on a touchscreen overlaid with a tactile segmentation template that defines a plurality of windows over the touchscreen, a visualization of the hierarchical data structure in which logical sections of the hierarchical data structure are rendered within selected windows defined by the tactile segmentation template.” The limitations amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional elements “the data representing the hierarchical data structure is operable to render, on a display, an interactive visualization of the hierarchical data structure that includes one or more boundaries that separate logical sections of the hierarchical data structure, wherein interaction with one or more of the boundaries triggers rendition of audio or haptic feedback.” The limitations amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “the content extracted or otherwise derived from one or more of the digital content items comprises: one or more digital images; digital video content; or digital audio content.” The limitation amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 22 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art of records fails to teach using one or more of the generative models, processing data indicative of the first summary, in conjunction with data indicative of a second summary used to populate another branch node of the first tier, to generate second tier output, wherein the second tier output includes a third summary of the first and second summaries, and wherein the second summary describes content used to populate a second subtree of leaf nodes of the hierarchical data structure that is disparate from the first subtree, and wherein the second tier output includes a third summary that summarizes both of the first and second summaries.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Isaacson et al . (US 2012/0054594) discloses a parsing/processing agent is software instructions that reside on a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium and executes on the REST server. Again, the REST server configured to execute the parsing/processing agent. The parsing/processing agent parses documents and creates an abstract tree representation of data files that can be addressed at a finer granularity than just the typical file boundaries.
Vermeersch et al . (US 9,697,211) discloses techniques for creating and using a hierarchical data structure, in accordance with embodiments of the present invention include storing received data as records in a first level of the hierarchical data structure. One or more parameters for each block of records in the first level are summarized and stored in a second level of the hierarchical data structure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm EST.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
January 5, 2026