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
Applicant has amended claims 1, 12, 20, in the filed amendment on 9/1/2026.
Claims 1-9, 11-20 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9, 11-20 have been considered but are moot in the new ground of rejection.
For 101 rejection:
Applicant argued that claimed method addresses problem through a linked sequence of operations. It determines, based on the topic's intention information, whether the topic reflects the key information of its posts. If not, it determines supplementary information from the posts, where the supplementary information represents that key information and is original post text or text generated by processing the posts. It then displays, in the topic list, both the topic and the supplementary information extracted from the topic details page, while separately displaying that details page in response to a triggering operation on the topic.
The claim is not merely a field-of-use limitation or a generic instruction to use a computer to display information. It specifies a conditional data-selection operation, the source and nature of the supplementary information, the placement of that information in a topic list, and the separate triggering of the topic details page. These limitations coordinate the application's data flow and user-interface state. They cause post-level information to be selected or generated when topic-level intention information is insufficient, expose that information at the parent-level list, and preserve the child-level details- page presentation after a triggering operation. The arrangement can allow a user to assess relevance without opening the details page when the supplementary information is sufficient, thereby avoiding some unnecessary navigation and associated loading or rendering. That potential benefit is a consequence of the claimed arrangement, not a separate claim requirement or a guaranteed result. This is an improvement in the operation of the computer-implemented interface, not mere information presentation. The claim changes the relationship between the data used to populate the list page and the post data made available on the details page by selectively deriving post-level content and placing it in the topic-level list under a specified condition.
Accordingly, the pending claims are eligible under § 101 for the reasons above, and the dependent claims also include additional limitations that further support eligibility.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations “cause post-level information to be selected or generated when topic-level intention information is insufficient, expose that information at the parent-level list, and preserve the child-level details- page presentation after a triggering operation” and “changes the relationship between the data used to populate the list page and the post data made available on the details page by selectively deriving post-level content and placing it in the topic-level list under a specified condition” are not disclosed in claims.
However, claims 1, 12, 20 recite abstract idea of
(determining, based on intention information of a topic, whether the topic reflects key information of one or more topic posts of the topic;
determining, in response to the topic not reflecting the key information of the topic posts, supplementary information of the topic based on the topic posts, the supplementary information representing the key information of the one or more topic posts) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of determining and determining. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
step 2A Prong Two
Claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because additional elements of a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to, based on instructions stored in the memory, perform an information generation method comprising (in claim 12) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for obtaining that are well understood routine and conventional activities.
The additional limitations of (displaying, in a topic list, a plurality of topics, wherein the topic list comprises the topic and the supplementary information which is extracted from a subpage of the topic; displaying, in response to a triggering operation on the topic, the topic details page for presenting the one or more topic posts) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp); and that appears to be nothing more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer or in a computer environment as per MPEP 2106.05(f). More specifically, the using the directed graph is represented as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Generic parallel processing is not any improvement to the function of the computer or technology, there is no recitation of any new or improved way. Instead it is generic computer implementation, consistent with the Federal Circuit decision for instance in SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The additional limitations of
(wherein the topic list comprises the topic and the supplementary information) that just indicates definition of the topic list including information and topic; and
(the subpage being a topic details page) that just indicates subpage is topic page and (the supplementary information being an original text of the one or more topic posts or generated by processing the one or more topic posts) that just indicates information generated from processing topic.
Accordingly, 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
step 2B
Claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements of a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to, based on instructions stored in the memory, perform an information generation method comprising (in claim 12) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for obtaining that are well understood routine and conventional activities.
The additional limitations of (displaying, in a topic list, a plurality of topics, wherein the topic list comprises the topic and the supplementary information which is extracted from a subpage of the topic; displaying, in response to a triggering operation on the topic, the topic details page for presenting the one or more topic posts) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp); and that appears to be nothing more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer or in a computer environment as per MPEP 2106.05(f). More specifically, the using the directed graph is represented as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Generic parallel processing is not any improvement to the function of the computer or technology, there is no recitation of any new or improved way. Instead it is generic computer implementation, consistent with the Federal Circuit decision for instance in SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The additional limitations of
(wherein the topic list comprises the topic and the supplementary information) that just indicates definition of the topic list including information and topic; and
(the subpage being a topic details page) that just indicates subpage is topic page and (the supplementary information being an original text of the one or more topic posts or generated by processing the one or more topic posts) that just indicates information generated from processing topic.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
As discussed above 101 rejection for claims is still maintained in this office action.
For 103 rejection: Applicant argued that the prior arts of the record do not teach amended claims.
In response to Applicant argument claims are rejected under new ground.
In addition,
Hoots teaches limitations:
“determining, based on intention information of a topic, whether the topic reflects……” as determining, based on keywords and/or phrases of a topic of interest, whether the topic matches as reflects stored topics (fig. 3, paragraphs 66, 79). The keywords and/or phrases of a topic of interest are represented as intention information. In particularly: the electronic communication summarization program 160 may query (at 262) the database 288 and use NLP and/or machine learning to compare keywords/phrases from the topic of interest that was identified at 242 to stored topics. In turn, and as previously described at 252, the electronic communication summarization program 160 may determine whether the identified topic of interest matches or relates to one or more stored topics. According to one embodiment, the electronic communication summarization program 160 may use NLP algorithms to determine a match between the identified topic and stored topics based on a threshold percentage. For example, the electronic communication summarization program 160 may determine that an identified topic matches a stored topic if the keywords and/or phrases are a match above a threshold percentage of 80%. Conversely, in response to the electronic communication summarization program 160 determining that the identified topic of interest at 242 does not match any of the stored topics (for example, falling below the threshold percentage), the electronic communication summarization program 160 may, at 272 in FIG. 2, automatically add the identified topic of interest as a new topic and set a base interest percentage/ranking to indicate a degree of interest that user has in the new topic (paragraph 66);
“determining, in response to the topic not reflecting……, supplementary information of the topic based on……” as setting as determining, in response to determining that the identified topic of interest at 242 does not match the stored topics as does not reflect the stored topics, an interest percentage as supplementary information of the topic based on the stored topics to indicate a degree of interest that user has in the new topic (paragraph 66), “the supplementary information representing……” as the interest percentage as supplementary percentage representing a base ranking (paragraph 68);
“displaying, in a topic list, a plurality of topics, wherein the topic list comprises the topic and the supplementary information which is extracted from……” as presenting as displaying a list of the topics of interest already stored on the database 288 as well as their assigned interest percentages to enable the user to customize, add, remove, and edit topics of interest as well as the interest percentages (figs. 2-3, paragraphs 69, 79), the list of the topics includes topic and the interest percentage as the supplementary information (fig. 3, paragraphs 79, 69), the interest percentage as the supplementary information, which is stored in a database 288, is retrieved from a database 288 for displaying the communication summary 300 including the interest percentage (paragraph 80), “the supplementary information being an original text of the one or more topic posts or generated by processing……” as the interest percentage as the supplementary information is generated when generating as processing a topic of interest (paragraph 69).
Gupta teaches limitations
“key information of one or more topic posts of the topic” as features indicative of suggestive intent of one or more social posts, which are used to identify suggestive intent posts, are represented as key information (paragraphs 34, 52-53). The social posts that include topic are represented as topic posts of the topic (paragraph 34). In particularly: The suggestive intent posts can be identified by identifying features indicative of suggestive intent in the social posts. For example, various words or phrases, such as "wish" or "hope", indicate that a social post includes a suggestion. The way in which these features are determined is described below in section titled "Building the Suggestive Intent Model". Suggestive intent module 110, therefore, can identify a social post as a suggestive intent post by determining that the social post includes a given topic, and by determining that the social post includes features indicative of suggestive intent that are targeted to an aspect related to the given topic (paragraphs 34, 51-52);
“the key information of the topic posts” as features indicative of suggestive intent of the social posts, which are used to identify suggestive intent posts, are represented as key information (paragraphs 34, 52-53). The social posts that include topic are represented as topic posts of the topic (paragraphs 34, 51-52);
“the key information of the one or more topic posts” as features indicative of suggestive intent of the social posts, which are used to identify suggestive intent posts, are represented as key information (paragraphs 34, 52-53). The social posts that include topic are represented as topic posts of the topic (paragraphs 34, 51-52);
“the topic posts” as social posts that include topic are represented as topic posts of the topic (paragraphs 34, 51-52);
the one or more topic posts; the one or more topic posts as the one or more social posts that include topic are represented as topic posts (paragraphs 34, 51-52).
Gupta further teaches limitation
“intention information of a topic” as suggestive intent of a given topic as intention information of a topic (paragraphs 33, 51);
“displaying, in a topic list, a plurality of topics, wherein the topic list comprises the topic and the supplementary information” as displaying in a topic list 308, a plurality records 310 including phones or aspect as topics and confidence such as 82.00 as the supplementary information (figs. 3, paragraphs 52-53);
“presenting the one or more topic posts” as displaying the one or more topic posts (paragraph 51);
“the supplementary information which is extracted from……” as various features, which is indicative of suggestive intent and is represented as the supplementary information, is extracted from collected social posts 108 (paragraph 42);
“the supplementary information being an original text of the one or more topic posts or generated by processing the one or more topic posts” as a high confidence level 210 as the supplementary information is generated if a social post 108 includes the identified topic 202 (paragraph 49).
As discussed above the combination of references teach the above limitations.
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 1-9, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Per Step 1, claim 1 is directed to an information generation method, claim 12 to an information generation apparatus, and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which are statutory categories of invention per Step 1. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or are significantly more.
Step 2A:
a) In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
Claims 1, 12, 20 similarly recite abstract idea of
(determining, based on intention information of a topic, whether the topic reflects key information of one or more topic posts of the topic;
determining, in response to the topic not reflecting the key information of the topic posts, supplementary information of the topic based on the topic posts, the supplementary information representing the key information of the one or more topic posts) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of determining and determining. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
b) In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
Claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because additional elements of a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to, based on instructions stored in the memory, perform an information generation method comprising (in claim 12) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for obtaining that are well understood routine and conventional activities.
The additional limitations of (displaying, in a topic list, a plurality of topics, wherein the topic list comprises the topic and the supplementary information which is extracted from a subpage of the topic; displaying, in response to a triggering operation on the topic, the topic details page for presenting the one or more topic posts) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp); and that appears to be nothing more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer or in a computer environment as per MPEP 2106.05(f). More specifically, the using the directed graph is represented as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Generic parallel processing is not any improvement to the function of the computer or technology, there is no recitation of any new or improved way. Instead it is generic computer implementation, consistent with the Federal Circuit decision for instance in SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The additional limitations of
(wherein the topic list comprises the topic and the supplementary information) that just indicates definition of the topic list including information and topic; and
(the subpage being a topic details page) that just indicates subpage is topic page and (the supplementary information being an original text of the one or more topic posts or generated by processing the one or more topic posts) that just indicates information generated from processing topic.
Accordingly, 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
c) In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
Claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements of a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to, based on instructions stored in the memory, perform an information generation method comprising (in claim 12) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for obtaining that are well understood routine and conventional activities.
The additional limitations of (displaying, in a topic list, a plurality of topics, wherein the topic list comprises the topic and the supplementary information which is extracted from a subpage of the topic; displaying, in response to a triggering operation on the topic, the topic details page for presenting the one or more topic posts) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp); and that appears to be nothing more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer or in a computer environment as per MPEP 2106.05(f). More specifically, the using the directed graph is represented as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Generic parallel processing is not any improvement to the function of the computer or technology, there is no recitation of any new or improved way. Instead it is generic computer implementation, consistent with the Federal Circuit decision for instance in SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The additional limitations of
(wherein the topic list comprises the topic and the supplementary information) that just indicates definition of the topic list including information and topic; and
(the subpage being a topic details page) that just indicates subpage is topic page and (the supplementary information being an original text of the one or more topic posts or generated by processing the one or more topic posts) that just indicates information generated from processing topic.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11, 13-19 include all the limitations of claims 1, 12, 20. Therefore, claims 2-9, 11, 13-19 recite the same abstract idea practically being performed in the mind, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
In particularly:
Claims 2, 13, similarly recite abstract idea of
(classifying or classify intention words of the one or more topic posts; and determining or determine the key information based on intention word(s) in a category associated with a largest quantity of topic posts) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of classifying and determining. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 3, 14, similarly recite abstract idea of
(the classifying intention words in the one or more topic posts comprises: clustering the intention words of the one or more topic posts; or determining dimension(s) to which the intention words of the one or more topic posts belong, and classifying the intention words of the one or more topic posts based on the dimension(s)) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of classifying, clustering or determining. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 4, 15, similarly recite abstract idea of
( wherein the determining, based on the intention information of the topic, whether the topic reflects key information of the one or more topic posts of the topic comprises: in response to the intention information of the topic indicating that the topic has no intention, determining that the topic does not reflect the key information of the topic posts) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of determining, and determining. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 5, 16, similarly recite abstract idea of
(wherein the determining, based on the intention information of the topic, whether the topic reflects the key information of the one or more topic posts of the topic comprises: determining the key information of the topic posts based on intention words of the one or more topic posts; in response to the intention words of the topic matching the key information of the one or more topic posts, determining that the topic reflects the key information of the topic posts of the topic; and in response to the intention words of the topic not matching the key information of the one or more topic posts, determining that the topic does not reflect the key information of the topic posts of the topic) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of determining, determining, determining, determining. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 6, 17, similarly recite abstract idea of
wherein determining the supplementary information of the topic based on the topic posts comprises: determining the supplementary information of the topic based on the topic posts related to the key information) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of determining and determining. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 7, 18, similarly recite abstract idea of
( wherein the determining the supplementary information of the topic based on the topic posts comprises: using text, or a recommended book, or a recommended author of at least one of the topic posts related to the key information as the supplementary information; or processing, by using a machine learning model, the at least one of the topic posts related to the key information, to obtain the supplementary information output by the machine learning model) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of determining, using, processing. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 8, 19 similarly recite limitation of (wherein the at least one of the topic posts related to the key information is a topic post with a highest amount of information, and the amount of information in the topic post is determined based on at least one of text of the topic post, publisher information of the topic post, information about a recommended book of the topic post, intention information of the topic post, or a correlation with the topic of the topic post) that just indicates topic post is a topic post with highest amount of information, the highest amount of information determined based on intention information of the topic post.
Claim 9 recites limitation (wherein the dimension comprises at least one of an author, a plot, a subject, an evaluation, or a book status) that just indicates dimension is author.
Claim 11 recites limitation (processing, by using an intention analysis model, a title and description information of the topic to obtain the intention information of the topic; or processing, by using the intention analysis model, the topic posts to obtain the intention information of the topic posts) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform step of processing. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-20 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.
The limitation “the supplementary information which is extracted from a subpage of the topic” in claims 1, 12, 20 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.
The dependent claims 2-9, 11, 13-19 of claims 1, 12, 20 are rejected as the same reason as discussed in claims 1, 12, 20.
Remark: According to paragraph 68 of the specification of the publication application “target topic posts (that is, the “at least one topic post”) are first screened from the topic posts related to the key information, and then the supplementary information is extracted from the target topic posts”, the supplementary information which is extracted from target topic posts, not from a subpage of the topic.
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 11-12, 17-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoots et al (US 20240160850) in view of Gupta et al (US 20150127591) and Saha et al (US 20190385089).
As to claim 1, Hoots teaches an information generation method (paragraph 66), comprising:
“determining, based on intention information of a topic, whether the topic reflects……” as determining, based on keywords and/or phrases of a topic of interest, whether the topic matches as reflects stored topics (fig. 3, paragraphs 66, 79). The keywords and/or phrases of a topic of interest are represented as intention information. In particularly: the electronic communication summarization program 160 may query (at 262) the database 288 and use NLP and/or machine learning to compare keywords/phrases from the topic of interest that was identified at 242 to stored topics. In turn, and as previously described at 252, the electronic communication summarization program 160 may determine whether the identified topic of interest matches or relates to one or more stored topics. According to one embodiment, the electronic communication summarization program 160 may use NLP algorithms to determine a match between the identified topic and stored topics based on a threshold percentage. For example, the electronic communication summarization program 160 may determine that an identified topic matches a stored topic if the keywords and/or phrases are a match above a threshold percentage of 80%. Conversely, in response to the electronic communication summarization program 160 determining that the identified topic of interest at 242 does not match any of the stored topics (for example, falling below the threshold percentage), the electronic communication summarization program 160 may, at 272 in FIG. 2, automatically add the identified topic of interest as a new topic and set a base interest percentage/ranking to indicate a degree of interest that user has in the new topic (paragraph 66);
“determining, in response to the topic not reflecting……, supplementary information of the topic based on……” as setting as determining, in response to determining that the identified topic of interest at 242 does not match the stored topics as does not reflect the stored topics, an interest percentage as supplementary information of the topic based on the stored topics to indicate a degree of interest that user has in the new topic (paragraph 66), “the supplementary information representing……” as the interest percentage as supplementary percentage representing a base ranking (paragraph 68);
“displaying, in a topic list, a plurality of topics, wherein the topic list comprises the topic and the supplementary information which is extracted from……” as presenting as displaying a list of the topics of interest already stored on the database 288 as well as their assigned interest percentages to enable the user to customize, add, remove, and edit topics of interest as well as the interest percentages (figs. 2-3, paragraphs 69, 79), the list of the topics includes topic and the interest percentage as the supplementary information (fig. 3, paragraphs 79, 69), the interest percentage as the supplementary information, which is stored in a database 288, is retrieved from a database 288 for displaying the communication summary 300 including the interest percentage (paragraph 80), “the supplementary information being an original text of the one or more topic posts or generated by processing……” as the interest percentage as the supplementary information is generated when generating as processing a topic of interest (paragraph 69).
Hoots does not explicitly teach limitations
key information of one or more topic posts of the topic; the key information of the topic posts; the topic posts; the key information of the one or more topic posts; the one or more topic posts;
a subpage of the topic, the subpage being a topic details page;
displaying, in response to a triggering operation on the topic, the topic details page for presenting the one or more topic posts.
Gupta teaches limitations
“key information of one or more topic posts of the topic” as features indicative of suggestive intent of one or more social posts, which are used to identify suggestive intent posts, are represented as key information (paragraphs 34, 52-53). The social posts that include topic are represented as topic posts of the topic (paragraph 34). In particularly: The suggestive intent posts can be identified by identifying features indicative of suggestive intent in the social posts. For example, various words or phrases, such as "wish" or "hope", indicate that a social post includes a suggestion. The way in which these features are determined is described below in section titled "Building the Suggestive Intent Model". Suggestive intent module 110, therefore, can identify a social post as a suggestive intent post by determining that the social post includes a given topic, and by determining that the social post includes features indicative of suggestive intent that are targeted to an aspect related to the given topic (paragraphs 34, 51-52);
“the key information of the topic posts” as features indicative of suggestive intent of the social posts, which are used to identify suggestive intent posts, are represented as key information (paragraphs 34, 52-53). The social posts that include topic are represented as topic posts of the topic (paragraphs 34, 51-52);
“the key information of the one or more topic posts” as features indicative of suggestive intent of the social posts, which are used to identify suggestive intent posts, are represented as key information (paragraphs 34, 52-53). The social posts that include topic are represented as topic posts of the topic (paragraphs 34, 51-52);
“the topic posts” as social posts that include topic are represented as topic posts of the topic (paragraphs 34, 51-52);
the one or more topic posts; the one or more topic posts as the one or more social posts that include topic are represented as topic posts (paragraphs 34, 51-52).
Gupta further teaches limitation
“intention information of a topic” as suggestive intent of a given topic as intention information of a topic (paragraphs 33, 51);
“displaying, in a topic list, a plurality of topics, wherein the topic list comprises the topic and the supplementary information” as displaying in a topic list 308, a plurality records 310 including phones or aspect as topics and confidence such as 82.00 as the supplementary information (figs. 3, paragraphs 52-53);
“presenting the one or more topic posts” as displaying the one or more topic posts (paragraph 51);
“the supplementary information which is extracted from……” as various features, which is indicative of suggestive intent and is represented as the supplementary information, is extracted from collected social posts 108 (paragraph 42);
“the supplementary information being an original text of the one or more topic posts or generated by processing the one or more topic posts” as a high confidence level 210 as the supplementary information is generated if a social post 108 includes the identified topic 202 (paragraph 49).
Hoots and Gupta disclose a method of identifying topics for displaying. These references are in the same field as application’s field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Gupta’s teaching to Hoots’s system to allow a user identify topic posts expressing suggestive intent similarly to a topic quickly, and further to provide the user an effective and convenient method to specify a level of confidence required for a social post to be classified as a suggestive intent post.
Saha teaches limitations
a subpage of the topic, the subpage being a topic details page (as topic page as subpage of the topic: figs. 2-3, paragraphs 36-38);
“displaying, in response to a triggering operation on the topic, the topic details page for presenting the one or more topic posts” as display, in response to selection of topic 4 as triggering operation on the topic 4, page 304 of topic 4 for presenting articles of sub topics as the one or more topic posts (paragraph 36-38, fig. 3).
Saha further teaches limitation
“displaying, in a topic list, a plurality of topics, wherein the topic list comprises the topic and the supplementary information which is extracted from a subpage of the topic, the subpage being a topic details page, and the supplementary information being an original text of the one or more topic posts or generated by processing the one or more topic posts” as display, in a topic list, a plurality topics, the topic list includes the topic and information as the supplementary information in area 108 which is retrieved from topic page 202 (figs. 1-2, paragraphs 24-27), the information in area 108 is an original text of topic articles as topic posts (figs. 1-2, paragraphs 19, 21, 26).
Hoots and Saha disclose a method of identifying topics for displaying. These references are in the same field as application’s field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Saha’s teaching to Hoots’s system to allow users finding content of interest quickly as well as easily exploring related subjects and further to improve user's experience because the user may quickly navigate between areas of interest.
As to claims 6, 17, Hoots, Gupta and Saha teach limitations
“wherein determining the supplementary information of the topic based on the topic posts comprises: determining the supplementary information of the topic based on the topic posts related to the key information” as setting as determining the interest percentage as the supplementary of the topic based on (Hoots: paragraph 66) the topic social posts (Gupta: paragraph 34) includes (Hoots: paragraph 66): setting as determining the interest percentage as the supplementary of the topic based on (Hoots: paragraph 66) the topic social posts related to features indicative as the key information of suggestive intent of the social posts (Gupta: paragraphs 34, 52-53).
As to claims 7,18, Hoots, Gupta and Saha teach limitations
“wherein the determining the supplementary information of the topic based on the topic posts comprises: using text, or a recommended book, or a recommended author of at least one of the topic posts related to the key information as the supplementary information; or processing, by using a machine learning model, the at least one of the topic posts related to the key information, to obtain the supplementary information output by the machine learning model” as setting as determining the interest percentage as the supplementary of the topic based on (Hoots: paragraph 66) the topic social posts (Gupta: paragraph 34) includes (Hoots: paragraph 66) using keyword as text of (Hoots: paragraph 69) a topic social post of the topic social posts related to features indicative as the key information as (Gupta: paragraphs 34, 39) the interest percentage as the supplementary of the topic (Hoots: paragraph 66).
As to claim 11, Hoots, Gupta and Saha teach limitations
“processing, by using an intention analysis model, a title and description information of the topic to obtain the intention information of the topic; or
processing, by using the intention analysis model, the topic posts to obtain the intention information of the topic posts” as processing, using the suggestive intent model, the topic social posts to identify aspects as suggestions of the topic social posts (Gupta: paragraphs 29-30) or electronic communications such as messages and emails related to topics that are represented as the topic posts (Hoots: paragraph 12).
Claim 12 has the same limitations subject matter as discussed in claim 1; thus claim 12 is rejected under the same reason as discussed in claim 1. In addition, Hoots teaches limitation “a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to, based on instructions stored in the memory, perform an information generation method comprising:” as a memory; and processor connected to the memory storing instructions that are executed to perform generation method (paragraphs 4, 16, 66).
Claim 20 has the same limitations subject matter as discussed in claim 1; thus claim 20 is rejected under the same reason as discussed in claim 1. In addition, Hoots teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program that, when executed by a processor, causes processor to perform an information generation method comprising: paragraphs 4, 16, 66).
Claims 2-3, 9, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoots in view of Gupta and Saha and further in view of Klinkott (or hereinafter “Klin”) (US 20100121842).
As to claim 2, Hoots, Gupta and Saha teach limitations
“classifying intention words of the one or more topic posts” as classifying (Hoots: paragraphs 39-40) words of the topic post (Gupta: fig. 3, paragraphs 32, 34, 62); and
“determining the key information based on…… associated with ……topic posts” as identifying as determining the features indicative of suggestion intent as the key information based on suggestive intent model 116 (Gupta: paragraphs 34, 42) associated with multiple target topic posts (Saha: figs. 2-3; Hoots: paragraphs 39-40).
Hoots, Gupta and Saha do not explicitly teach limitations
intention word(s) in a category associated with a largest quantity of.
Klin teaches limitations
“intention word(s) in a category associated with a largest quantity of topic posts” as subcategories e.g., humor, clubs as intention words in main category: pets (fig. 4, paragraph 43) associated with largest number of search results, which are displayed on a user interface and have a title as topic, are represented as a largest quantity of topic posts (paragraphs 40-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Klin’s teaching to Hoots’s system in order to provide user with links to high quality, relevant results based on the search query and further to enable improved capabilities for users to search for and locate desirable content.
As to claims 3, 14, Hoots, Gupta, Saha and Klin teach limitations
“wherein the classifying intention words in the one or more topic posts comprises: clustering the intention words of the one or more topic posts; or determining dimension(s) to which the intention words of the one or more topic posts belong, and classifying the intention words of the one or more topic posts based on the dimension(s)” as classifying (Hoots: paragraphs 39-40) words of the topic post (Gupta: fig. 3, paragraphs 32, 34, 62) includes (Hoots: paragraphs 39-40): linking as clustering (Klin: paragraphs 12-13) words of the topic post e.g., 310 (Gupta: fig. 3, paragraph 34).
As to claim 9, Hoots, Gupta, Saha and Klin teach limitations
“wherein the dimension comprises at least one of an author, a plot, a subject, an evaluation, or a book status” as a social network control 306 as the dimension includes (Gupta: paragraph 39, fig. 3) an author (Klin: paragraph 8).
Claim 13 has the same limitation subject matter as discussed in claim 2; thus claim 13 is rejected under the same reason as discussed in claim 2. In addition, Hoots teaches limitation “wherein the processor is further configured to:” as the processor is configured to: (paragraph 4).
Claims 4, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoots in view Gupta and Saha and further in view of Penta et al (US 20210142791).
As to claims 4, 15, Hoots, Gupta and Saha teach limitations
“wherein the determining, based on the intention information of the topic, whether the topic reflects key information of the one or more topic posts of the topic comprises ……, determining that the topic does not reflect the key information of the topic posts” as determining, based on keywords and/or phrases of a topic of an interest as intention information of a topic, whether the topic matches as reflects (Hoots: paragraph 66) features indicative of suggestive intent as the key information of the topic social posts (Gupta: paragraphs 34, 52-53) includes determining the topic does not match as does not reflect (Hoots: paragraph 66) features indicative of suggestive intent as the key information of the topic social posts (Gupta: paragraphs 34, 52-53).
Hoots, Gupta and Saha do not explicitly teach limitation
in response to the intention information of the topic indicating that the topic has no intention.
Penta teaches limitation “in response to the intention information of the topic indicating that the topic has no intention” as in response a deal e.g., 10% of all conversation documents as the intention information indicating that the intent corresponding to the relevant topic is general and an intent refinement is necessary to discover sub-intents for the relevant topic (paragraph 91) that indicates topic has no relevant intent, triggering the intent refinement process performed by the intent formulator 150 and the intent refiner 160 to generate intent(s) (paragraphs 49-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Penta’s teaching to Hoots’s system in order to classify the topics with good accuracy and further to classify all the text segments in documents that contain utterance related to intent correctly.
Claims 5, 8, 16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoots in view Gupta and Saha and further in view of Li et al (US
As to claims 5, 16, Hoots, Gupta and Saha teach limitations
“wherein the determining, based on the intention information of the topic, whether the topic reflects the key information of the one or more topic posts of the topic comprises: determining the key information of the topic posts based on ……” as determining, based on keywords and/or phrases of a topic as intention information of a topic, whether the topic matches as reflects (Hoots: paragraph 66) features indicative of suggestive intent as the key information of the topic social posts (Gupta: paragraph 34) includes: determining the features indicative of suggestive intent of the topic social posts based on text of training corpus (Gupta: paragraphs 34, 69);
“in response to the intention words of the topic matching the key information of the one or more topic posts, determining that the topic reflects the key information of the topic posts of the topic” as in response to the words and/or phrases of the topic of interest as the intention words matching above a threshold percentage of 80% (Hoots: paragraph 66) features indicative of suggestive intent as the key information of the topic social posts (Gupta: paragraphs 34, 52-53), determining the topic matches (Hoots: paragraph 66) features indicative of suggestive intent as the key information of the topic social posts (Gupta: paragraphs 34, 52-53);
“in response to the intention words of the topic not matching the key information of the one or more topic posts, determining that the topic does not reflect the key information of the topic posts of the topic” as in response to the words and/or phrases of the topic of interest as the intention words matching below a threshold percentage (Hoots: paragraph 66) features indicative of suggestive intent as the key information of the topic social posts (Gupta: paragraphs 34, 52-53), determining the topic does not match as does not reflect (Hoots: paragraph 66) features indicative of suggestive intent as the key information of the topic social posts (Gupta: paragraphs 34, 52-53).
Hoots, Gupta and Saha do not explicitly teach limitation
intention words of the one or more topic posts.
Li teaches limitation
“intention words of the one or more topic posts” as topic titles, which correspond to the topic posts having a high proportion under the target recommended topic have contents related to the recommended books, are represented as intention words of the topic posts (paragraph 101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Li’s teaching to Hoots’s system in order to allow a user to view topics for selecting a most interest for reading and further to improve the efficiency of finding topics of interest.
As to claims 8, 19, Hoots, Gupta and Saha teach limitations
“wherein the at least one of the topic posts related to the key information is a topic post” as the one of the topic posts related to features indicate as the key information is a topic post (Gupta: paragraphs 34, 49, 53);
“……in the topic post is determined based on at least one of text of the topic post, publisher information of the topic post, information about a recommended book of the topic post, intention information of the topic post, or a correlation with the topic of the topic post” as content, in the topic post (Gupta: paragraph 34), is extracted as determined based on (Hoots: paragraph 14) word as text of the topic post (Gupta: paragraph 34).
Hoots, Gupta and Saha do not explicitly teach limitations
with a highest amount of information; the amount of information in the topic post.
Li teaches limitations
the at least one of the topic posts is a topic post with a highest amount of information” as a topic post of topic posts is a topic post 20 comments as amount of information or 10 users who are discussing as the amount of information in the topic post 1 is displayed as determined based on (Li: fig. 7, paragraph 106);
“the amount of information in the topic post is determined” as 20 comments as amount of information or 10 users who are discussing as the amount of information in the topic post 1 are displayed as determined (Li: fig. 7, paragraph 106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Li’s teaching to Hoots’s system in order to allow a user to view topics for selecting a most interest for reading and further to improve the efficiency of finding topics of interest.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Klein et al (US 20170302614 A1) discloses mapping module 245 may also map 420 the extracted topic 315 to the related page 320 or meta page using hierarchical agglomerative clustering (paragraph 46).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAM-Y T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4042. The examiner can normally be reached (571) 272 4042.
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.
/CAM Y T TRUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights