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 response to the communication filed on October 17, 2025. Claim 2-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding art rejection filed on October 17, 2025 have been considered but are moot in the view of new ground of rejection. Applicant argument regarding 101 rejection is not persuasive. The Double patenting rejection is maintained as no terminal disclaimer has been filed.
Regarding 101 rejection applicant argues the claimed invention improves a computer or other related technology by reciting a particular solution to a problem.
In response examiner respectfully disagree. The recited limitation of determining (all instances), identifying (all instances) and increasing a strength as claimed are nothing but mental process. User can mentally determine higher level of activity and identify a related topic by reading document which clearly mental process. Similarly, user can mentally increase strength based on the determining which is also mental process. The additional limitation receiving and causing display as recited considered as insignificant extra-solution activity. The receiving step as recited amounts to mere data gathering for use in the detection step, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Similarly, causing steps (both instances) as recited nothing more than data gathering and outputting. Further, the computer technology being used in the claim steps is nothing but generic computer component and the courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
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 2-21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10068023, 11379544, and 12158918. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application substantially recite the limitations of claims of the cited U.S Patent No. 10068023, 11379544, and 12158918. The claim merely omits/add certain limitations. Even though the claims omit/add some limitations, that does not change the scope of the invention and would perform same functionality.
"A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. All independent claims recited “based on determining that the strength of association does not exceed the predetermined value, causing to be display the first set of search results” which is not supported by the specification. At the best, applicant specification paragraphs [0097] and [0098] recited “plurality of communications does not exceed the threshold number” to increase or decrease strength. Appropriate correction is required.
All dependent claims are rejected based on their respective dependency.
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 2-21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim 2, it recites determining that a first symbol has a higher level of activity relative to a baseline level of activity for the first symbol; identifying a topic relating to the first symbol; determining that a second symbol and a third symbol are related to the topic; based on determining that the second symbol and the third symbol are related to the topic, increasing a strength of association between the second symbol and the third symbol; receiving a search query comprising the second symbol; based on receiving the search query: identifying a first set of search results matching the second symbol; based on determining that the strength of association exceeds a predetermined value, identifying a second set of results matching the third symbol; and causing to be displayed the first set of search results and the second set of search results; and based on determining that the strength of association does not exceed the predetermined value, causing to be display the first set of search result.
The claim recited the limitation of determining and identifying as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can mentally identify a topic reading by mentally determining higher level of activity by observing or reading. If necessary, user can user physical aid (e.g., pen and paper). Hence, determining and identifying limitations are a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, B, If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand.").
The claim recites three additional elements: receiving a search query comprising the second symbol and causing to be displayed the first set of search results and the second set of search results and based on determining that the strength of association does not exceed the predetermined value, causing to be display the first set of search result. The receiving step as recited amounts to mere data gathering for use in the detection step, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Similarly, causing steps (both instances) as recited nothing more than data gathering and outputting Hence, causing step is an insignificant extra-solution activity. 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. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
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 receiving search query and causing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of updating links between keywords associated with a trending topic. The claim recites the limitations of determining that the first symbol has the higher level of activity relative to the baseline level of activity comprises: identifying a first plurality of communications on a network corresponding to a first time period, wherein the first plurality of communications comprise the first symbol; establishing the baseline level of activity based on the first plurality of communications; identifying a second plurality of communications on the network corresponding to a second time period; and determining that the first symbol has a higher level of activity relative to the baseline level of activity for the first symbol when a first number of communications of the first plurality of communications is lower than a second number of communications of the second plurality of communications., which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3 and includes all the limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of updating links between keywords associated with a trending topic. The claim recites the limitations of wherein a duration of the first time period is equal to a duration of the second time period, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 3 and includes all the limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of updating links between keywords associated with a trending topic. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the first plurality of communications are generated by a plurality of users of a social network, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of updating links between keywords associated with a trending topic. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the first plurality of communications comprises at least one of an online social network, email messages, text messages, Internet communications, websites, mobile application communications, and/or communications received from a third-party data source, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of updating links between keywords associated with a trending topic. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the increasing the strength of association between the second symbol and the third symbol is proportional to an amount by which the first symbol has a higher level of activity relative to a baseline level of activity for the first symbol , which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of updating links between keywords associated with a trending topic. The claim recites the limitations of detecting, subsequent to determining that a first symbol has the higher level of activity relative to the baseline level of activity for the first symbol, a decrease in a level of activity for the first symbol; and in response to detecting the decrease in level of activity for the first symbol, decreasing the strength of association between the second symbol and the third symbol, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 8 and includes all the limitations of claim 8. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of updating links between keywords associated with a trending topic. The claim recites the limitations of wherein identifying the topic relating to the first symbol comprises: accessing a graph comprising contextual relationships between symbols and topics; and determining that the first symbol is related to the topic when a measure of a contextual relationship between the first symbol and the topic exceeds a threshold value, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of updating links between keywords associated with a trending topic. The claim recites the limitations of decreasing the strength of association between the second symbol and the third symbol after a predetermined amount of time has passed, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim [] recites the same abstract idea of updating links between keywords associated with a trending topic. The claim recites the limitations of wherein determining that the second symbol and the third symbol are related to the topic comprises: determining, based on a graph comprising contextual relationships between symbols and topics, that a first graph weight between the second symbol and the topic exceeds a predetermined value, and that a second graph weight between the third symbol and the topic exceeds the predetermined value, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
As to claims 12-21, they have similar limitations as of claims 2-11 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 2-11 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (Pub. No. : US 20130110823 A1) in the view of Kritt et al. (Pub. No. : US 20140040228 A1).
As to claim 2 Su teaches a method comprising:
determining that a first symbol has a higher level of activity relative to a baseline level of activity (paragraph [0026], [0071], [0079]: identifying trending topic based on content received from one or more real-time data sources wherein the trending topics currently becoming popular with others);
identifying a topic relating to the first symbol (paragraph [0115]: the retrieved content is sorted by the probabilities that such content relates to the matching trending topic in descending order, and the top-most sorted content is provided to the user);
determining that a second symbol and a third symbol are related to the topic (paragraph [0032]: a list of concepts and/or named entities derived from real-time content 114 and associated probabilities that each such concept and/or named entity is related to one of the trending topics);
based on determining that the second symbol and the third symbol are related to the topic, increasing a strength of association between the second symbol and the third symbol (paragraph [0074], [0103]: the topic matching module 604 weights the summed probability with the user interest level associated for that concept and named entity (as determined by search history segmenting module 602), thereby generating a relevance value for the identified concept and named entity.);
receiving a search query comprising the second symbol (paragraph [0027]: a user submits a search query for the named entity);
based on receiving the search query:
identifying a first set of search results matching the second symbol (paragraph [0027]: returned as a result of the user's search query.);
based on determining that the strength of association exceeds a predetermined value, identifying a second set of results matching the third symbol (Paragraph [0069]: if a comparison of trending scores to a threshold leads to a less than desirable number of trending topics, topic list generation module 206 may adjust the threshold score to generate more trending topics.); and
causing to be displayed the first set of search results and the second set of search results (paragraph [0101]: user submits a search query for the named entity "Barack Obama" and accesses 15 documents, which were returned as a result of the user's search query).
Su does not explicitly disclose but Kritt teaches based on determining that the strength of association does not exceed the predetermined value, causing to be display the first set of search results (paragraph [0090]-[0091]: hit indicator 114A has an associated bar graph 170A that contains a data bar for each of four keywords, where the height of each bar shows the strength of the match for the associated keyword. For indicator 114A, the first keyword is a non-match; the second is a weak match; the third is a strong match; and the fourth is a medium match. Hit indicator 114B shows different bar-graph values for the four keywords, and miss indicator 116 shows weak matches that fall below a threshold for considering the page to be a hit, wherein The preview display may include a trigger event and a display mechanism).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Su by adding above limitation as taught by Kritt to evaluate each result and visit each web page that matched the query (Kritt, paragraph [0003]).
As to claim 3 Su together with Kritt teaches a method according to claim 2. Su teaches wherein determining that the first symbol has the higher level of activity relative to the baseline level of activity comprises: identifying a first plurality of communications on a network corresponding to a first time period, wherein the first plurality of communications comprise the first symbol; establishing the baseline level of activity based on the first plurality of communications; identifying a second plurality of communications on the network corresponding to a second time period; and determining that the first symbol has a higher level of activity relative to the baseline level of activity for the first symbol when a first number of communications of the first plurality of communications is lower than a second number of communications of the second plurality of communications (paragraphs [0029]-[0032]).
As to claim 4 Su together with Kritt teaches a method according to claim 3. Su teaches wherein a duration of the first time period is equal to a duration of the second time period (paragraph [0032]).
As to claim 5 Su together with Kritt teaches a method according to claim 3. Su teaches wherein the first plurality of communications are generated by a plurality of users of a social network (paragraph [0030]).
As to claim 6 Su together with Kritt teaches a method according to claim 2. Su teaches wherein the first plurality of communications comprises at least one of an online social network, email messages, text messages, Internet communications, websites, mobile application communications, and/or communications received from a third-party data source (paragraph [0029]).
As to claim 7 Su together with Kritt teaches a method according to claim 2. Su teaches wherein the increasing the strength of association between the second symbol and the third symbol is proportional to an amount by which the first symbol has a higher level of activity relative to a baseline level of activity for the first symbol (paragraph [0032]).
As to claim 8 Su together with Kritt teaches a method according to claim 2. Su teaches detecting, subsequent to determining that a first symbol has the higher level of activity relative to the baseline level of activity for the first symbol, a decrease in a level of activity for the first symbol; and in response to detecting the decrease in level of activity for the first symbol, decreasing the strength of association between the second symbol and the third symbol (paragraph [0005], [0069]).
As to claim 9 Su together with Kritt teaches a method according to claim 8. Su teaches wherein identifying the topic relating to the first symbol comprises: accessing a graph comprising contextual relationships between symbols and topics; and determining that the first symbol is related to the topic when a measure of a contextual relationship between the first symbol and the topic exceeds a threshold value (paragraph [0068]).
As to claim 10 Su together with Kritt teaches a method according to claim 2. Su teaches decreasing the strength of association between the second symbol and the third symbol after a predetermined amount of time has passed (paragraph [0006]).
As to claim 11 Su together with Kritt teaches a method according to claim 2. Su teaches wherein determining that the second symbol and the third symbol are related to the topic comprises: determining, based on a graph comprising contextual relationships between symbols and topics, that a first graph weight between the second symbol and the topic exceeds a predetermined value, and that a second graph weight between the third symbol and the topic exceeds the predetermined value (paragraph [0103]).
As to claims 12-21, they have similar limitations as of claims 2-11 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 2-11 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/MD I UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169