DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filling on 10/22/2024.
The application has claims 1-19 present. All present claims have been examined.
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and cited references filed 12/04/2024 and 8/18/2025 have been reviewed by the examiner.
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 .
Examiner Notes
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. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 5-6, 14-15 recite the term "and/or", which is selective language, the examiner suggests using either the "and" term or the "or" term, otherwise the claim should be worded in a clearer fashion to claim both terms. For purpose of this examination the examiner is selecting the "or" term from this selective language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,153,870, in view of Shami (US 20150066552). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims on the instant application are broader that the claims on patent ‘870. An example of the first claim’s mapping is shown below.
Instant application
US Patent # 12,153,870
1. A method comprising: receiving user input on a user device; parsing, with at least one processor, at least one textual document to identify events represented by the at least one textual document, the events identified based on the user input;
determining, with at least one processor, a temporal parameter for each event of events based on the at least one textual document;
ordering, with at least one processor, the plurality of events into a sequence based on the temporal parameter for each event; and generating, on the user device, an interactive graphical user interface comprising a visual representation of the plurality of events based on the sequence, the visual representation of the plurality of events linked to a textual document of the at least one textual document such that selection of an event causes at least a portion of the textual document related to the event or at least one other document related to the event to be displayed on the device.
1. A computer-implemented method for representing a plurality of events in an interactive graphical user interface, comprising: parsing at least one textual document to identify a plurality of events related to at least one entity;
determining a temporal parameter for each event of the plurality of events based on the at least one textual document, the temporal parameter for at least one event of the plurality of events comprising a start time parameter and an end time parameter, wherein determining the start time parameter and the end time parameter for the at least one event comprises: determining multiple temporal parameters for the at least one event, the multiple temporal parameters representing multiple timespans for the at least one event; and selecting the start time parameter and the end time parameter from the multiple temporal parameters that represent a shortest timespan of the multiple timespans for the at least one event;
ordering the plurality of events into a sequence based on the temporal parameter for each event; and generating an interactive graphical user interface comprising a visual representation of the plurality of events on a user device based on the sequence, the visual representation of the plurality of events linked to a textual document of the at least one textual document such that selection of an event causes the interactive graphical user interface to display at least a portion of the textual document related to the event or at least one other document related to the event.
In regards to claim 1, Pat ‘870 teaches all the limitations, but doesn’t specifically teach a subset of events of a plurality of events represented by the at least one textual document.
Shami teaches a subset of events of a plurality of events represented by the at least one textual document (see at least para 29-31: teaches determination of events and classification of it. Additionally teaches classification of sub-events related to an event “A model may classify events according to a classification scheme in which events may have related or subtypes of events (for example, a natural disaster event may have sub-events of flood, tornado, hurricane, or earthquake)”).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Shami and combine it with the teachings taught by Pat ‘870, since by doing it enhances the granularity to which the event data can be presented to the user in association with the user’s requested event visualization.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected along the same rationale as claim 1 over clams 12 and 22 of Pat ‘870 in view of Shami. The claims have the same limitations as claim 1 in a system and non-transitory computer product embodiment.
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(s) 1-2, 4-7, 10-11, 13-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landau et al. (US 20040027349), in view of Shami (US 20150066552).
In regards to claims (1, 10 and 19), Landau teaches a method comprising: receiving user input on a user device; parsing, with at least one processor, at least one textual document to identify events, the events identified based on the user input (see abstract and at least para 12, 21, 25-27, 43, 69-70, 76: displaying events (interactive graphical user interface) using parsed text analysis to recognize and identify events related to entities based on a received request. Para 12 “The text analysis engine may be further configured to associate each of the plurality of the events with a time or time interval.” Also, para 23: ”Text analysis engine 102 is preferably a processor configured to analyze the text and extract events related to one or more time series”. On para 39 teaches that using semantic can identify relations for the events. Para 25 provides example which relates subset of related events); determining, with at least one processor, a temporal parameter for each event based on the at least one textual document (see abstract and at least para 12, 14, 21: determine a time series/period (temporal) parameter for each event correlated/mined (based on) the document); ordering, with at least one processor, the plurality of events into a sequence based on the temporal parameter for each event (see at least para 9, 21, 78, 84: determining and ordering (plotting) the events into time sequence/series based on the parameter); and generating, on the user device, an interactive graphical user interface comprising a visual representation of the plurality of events based on the sequence, the visual representation of the plurality of events linked to a textual document of the at least one textual document such that selection of an event causes at least a portion of the textual document related to the event or at least one other document related to the event to be displayed on the device (see Fig 3C and at least para 82-84, 91-93, 103, 110: the representation icons clicked (linked) to a text record 316 (document) of the one textual document when selection of event icon 312 displays snippet text (portion) of the document or descriptions of associated (other) documents related to the event).
Landau doesn’t specifically mention a subset of events of a plurality of events represented by the at least one textual document.
Shami teaches a subset of events of a plurality of events represented by the at least one textual document (see at least para 29-31: teaches determination of events and classification of it. Additionally teaches classification of sub-events related to an event “A model may classify events according to a classification scheme in which events may have related or subtypes of events (for example, a natural disaster event may have sub-events of flood, tornado, hurricane, or earthquake)”).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Shami and combine it with the teachings taught by Landau to present subevent information, since by doing it enhances the granularity to which the event data can be presented to the user in association with the user’s requested event visualization.
In regard to claims 2 and 11, Landau teaches wherein the user input comprises at least one of the following: a person, a place, an organization, or any combination thereof (see para 36: “classified into entities, and facts. Entities preferably comprise a single word or sequence of words which represents an entity of a specific type, e.g. company name, person name, product name, technology, etc. Items 1-3 above are of this type. Facts preferably comprise specific information pertaining to the entities, e.g. company X acquiring company Y; person A being CEO of company X; or the fact that company Y is bankrupt. Items 4-6 above are of this type. Many facts provide information on relationships between entities (e.g. employment, acquisition, etc)”).
In regard to claims 4 and 13, Landau teaches wherein the user input is in response to a query to a user on the user device (see at least FIG 3a-b, at least para 9: the system provides an interface where the visual representation of events are generated based on parameters that are “queried” to a user, as the system presents selectable menus that are essential for the user to identify including an entity and time period for the data the user wants).
In regard to claims 5 and 14, Landau teaches wherein the subset of events and/or the visual representation of the plurality of events is based on a role of a user of the user device, the role comprising at least one of the following: an author, an editor, or a viewer (see at least para 21, 76-78: generating the visualization based on the request of the user/viewer who is interested in the data e.g. viewer requesting stock information).
In regard to claims 6 and 15, Landau teaches wherein the user input comprises one or more dates and/or date ranges (see para 9-10: “the application server program may be further configured to retrieve data corresponding to the parameter within the time period”).
In regard to claims 7 and 16, Landau teaches wherein the user input comprises options to configure a filter, and wherein the subset of events is identified based on the filter (see at least para 9-10: “receive data indicating a time period and a parameter, the parameter concerning an entity, (2) retrieve event information previously extracted automatically from unstructured text, the event relating to the entity within the time period”).
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landau and Shami as provided on claims 1 and 10, further in view of Shami (US20150066567) (hereinafter Mohammad).
In regard to claims 3 and 12, Landau teaches providing visual representation timeline as taught above (see Fig 3C and at least para 82-84, 91-93, 103, 110), however, doesn’t specifically teach wherein the visual representation of the plurality of events is generated based on a perspective of an entity identified by the user input.
Mohammad teaches wherein the visual representation of the plurality of events is generated based on a perspective of an entity identified by the user input (see at para 34-37: teaches that the system can match and classify data within documents in perspective to an entity e.g. Eaton Inc associated to events “shipper strike”. The system determines relevance to the analyzed data).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Mohammad and combine it with the teachings taught by Landau, since by doing it enhances how the information is presented to the user by providing information that relates and affects the identified entity.
Claim(s) 8-9, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landau and Shami as provided on claim 1 and 10, further in view of Arazi (US 10467327).
In regards to claims 8 and 17, Landau doesn’t teach wherein the temporal parameter for each event is determined based on an inference algorithm, wherein at least one event is associated with a temporal parameter having a confidence below a threshold, and wherein the at least one event is marked on the visual representation based on the confidence being below the threshold.
Arazi teaches wherein the temporal parameter for each event is determined based on an inference algorithm, wherein at least one event is associated with a temporal parameter having a confidence below a threshold, and wherein the at least one event is marked on the visual representation based on the confidence being below the threshold (see at least Col 102 line 53 to Col 103 line 13: teaches generating a timeline of events and providing a visual indication associated to a confidence value “For example, if 82% of the reliable users stated that the car accident occurred at 6:32 PM, but 18% of the reliable users stated that the car accident occurred at 6:34 PM, the timeline generated may include both times and note the percentages of reliable users that agree on the time of the car accident”).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Arazi and combine them with the teachings of Landau to provide indications within the event visualization for event confidence data values, since by doing it enhances the information provided to the user by indicating how reliable the provided data is.
In regards to claims 9 and 18, Landau doesn’t teach, further comprising: receiving the user input correcting the temporal parameter; and modifying the inference algorithm based on the user input correcting the temporal parameter.
However, Landau provides means for the user to change temporal para meter data, time period for the visual report (see at least FIG. 3a-b and at least para 9-10, 78).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Landau and provide means to correct and modify the parameters used to generate the visualization of the events, since by doing it enhances the analysis and adaptive presentation of the data to the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kikin-Gil et al. (US 11423073): teaches visual representation of a document with timeline and audio rendering of content.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights