DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a data acquiring means for acquiring feature data…” and “a word or phrase acquiring means for using the feature data…” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 7 and 8 recites, “acquiring feature data indicating a feature of an analysis target” and “a word or phrase acquiring process for using the feature data to cause a language model that has been machine-learned to generate at least one appealing word or phrase indicating a point which the analysis target appeals to a predetermined target person, or for causing the language model to select one or more of candidates for the at least one appealing word or phrase, the one or more matching the feature data”.
The limitation of acquiring feature data, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “processor”, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “acquiring” in the context of this claim encompasses acquiring data, which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper. Next, the limitation of generating an appealing word from feature data, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the elements listed above, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses categorizing words which a human can do in the mind or with a pen and paper.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of using a processor to perform the recited limitations. These elements in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that is amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor to perform the recited limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6 are also rejected for the same reasons provided in independent claim 1 above. The dependent claim, including the further recited limitation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the additional elements, taken individually and in combination do not contribute to an inventive concept. In other words, the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cohen (US 20210110431 A1).
Regarding independent claims 1, 7, and 8 Cohen teaches an information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out (FIG. 5, 504) / an analysis method comprising / a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium recording therein an analysis program for causing a computer to function as:
a data acquiring process for acquiring feature data indicating a feature of an analysis target (FIG. 2A, 200, 205, 210; [0029-0030] “in step 205, selected source resources and/or identifiers for a selected source resource may be received from a user…in step 210, information may be retrieved from one or more of the source resources”); and
a word or phrase acquiring process for using the feature data to cause a language model that has been machine-learned to generate at least one appealing word or phrase indicating a point which the analysis target appeals to a predetermined target person, or for causing the language model to select one or more of candidates for the at least one appealing word or phrase, the one or more matching the feature data (FIG. 2A, 200, 215; [0030] “In step 215, the source resources and/or information retrieved from the one or more source resources may be analyzed to detect one or more units of interest (UOI) associated with the respective source resources. Exemplary UOIs include, but are not limited to, keywords and phrases, interests, and brands”; FIG. 2B, 265-265, [0038] “In step 260, a model of an advertising campaign may be generated using, for example, results from execution of one or more of steps 205-255”; [0028] “execution of process 200, or portions thereof, may utilize machine learning and/or iterative modeling to develop targeted advertising campaigns”; FIG. 2A, 245, [0036] “in step 245, an indication that one or more target audiences and/or UOIs is selected may be received from of the user”).
Regarding claim 2, Cohen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends.
Additionally, Cohen teaches wherein in the data acquiring process, the at least one processor acquires, as the feature data, a feature word or phrase that is included in a document describing the analysis target and that indicates the feature of the analysis target ([0029] “an identifier for a source resource may include a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), JavaScript text, an Adobe Portable Document File (PDF), a word processor document, text”), and
in the word or phrase acquiring process, the at least one processor inputs the feature word or phrase into the language model to cause the language model to generate the at least one appealing word or phrase, or inputs the feature word or phrase and the candidates into the language model to cause the language model to select, as the at least one appealing word or phrase, one or more of the candidates, the one or more matching the feature word or phrase (FIG. 2A, 200, 215; [0030]; FIG. 2B, 265-265, [0038]; FIG. 2A, 245, [0036];).
Regarding claim 3, Cohen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends.
Additionally, Cohen teaches wherein in the data acquiring process, the at least one processor generates, from an image indicating the analysis target, a feature word or phrase indicating the feature of the analysis target, and acquires the feature word or phrase as the feature data ([0029] “an identifier for a source resource may include a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), JavaScript text, an Adobe Portable Document File (PDF), a word processor document, text, and/or images”), and
in the word or phrase acquiring process, the at least one processor inputs the feature word or phrase into the language model to cause the language model to generate the at least one appealing word or phrase, or inputs the feature word or phrase and the candidates into the language model to cause the language model to select, as the at least one appealing word or phrase, one or more of the candidates, the one or more matching the feature word or phrase (FIG. 2A, 200, 215; [0030]; FIG. 2B, 265-265, [0038]; FIG. 2A, 245, [0036];).
Regarding claim 4, Cohen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends.
Additionally, Cohen teaches wherein, in the word or phrase acquiring process, into the language model, the at least one processor inputs, together with the feature data, the at least one appealing word or phrase as the candidates, the at least one appealing word or phrase having been generated or selected for each analysis target included in some of a plurality of groups, the groups each including analysis targets having a shared attribute, and causes the language model to select, as the at least one appealing word or phrase, one or more of the input candidates, the one or more matching the feature data ([0032] “execution of step 225 includes bundling together a source resource and UOIs associated with the respective source resource together as a target audience and then storing the association as a target audience in the persistent data store”;).
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of Ray et al. “Creative tagline generation framework for product advertisement”, IBM Journal of Research and Development, 63(1), 6-1 (hereinafter Ray).
Regarding claim 5, Cohen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 5 depends.
Cohen fails to teach wherein the at least one processor carries out a display control process for displaying, on a display apparatus, a graph in which (a) a node indicating the analysis target and (b) a node indicating the at least one appealing word or phrase generated or selected for the analysis target are connected by an edge.
However, Ray teaches wherein the at least one processor carries out a display control process for displaying, on a display apparatus, a graph in which (a) a node indicating the analysis target and (b) a node indicating the at least one appealing word or phrase generated or selected for the analysis target are connected by an edge (FIG. 3, pg. 3, 3.2;)
Cohen in view of Ray are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are the same field of digital advertisements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques computer method and system for targeting digital advertisements of Cohen with the technique of using graph with nodes representing targets and appealing words taught by Ray in order to generate creative taglines for product advertisements (see Ray [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 6, Cohen in view of Ray teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 upon which claim 6 depends.
Additionally, Ray teaches wherein the at least one processor carries out a classification process for, in accordance with content of a plurality of appealing words or phrases that have been generated or selected and that the at least one appealing word or phrase comprises, classifying the plurality of appealing words or phrases (pg. 3, 3.2, “The schema (Ontology) of the KG is predefined (manually
created based on the data), and its instances are populated from the fashion data by identifying the different class elements using Watson Natural Language Classifier (NLC) [13]. The relationships among instances of different classes are learned from the data”), and
in the display control process, the at least one processor displays, in each of nodes corresponding to the respective appealing words or phrases that fall under an identical classification, a representative word or phrase which represents each of the appealing words or phrases that fall under the identical classification (FIG. 3, pg. 3, 3.2;).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kang (US 20110238495 A1) teaches a keyword-advertisement method using meta-information related to digital contents such as multimedia contents and a system thereof. The present invention discloses a method and a system for executing a keyword-advertisement by using meta-information such as tags included in multimedia contents such as a moving picture, an image, a sound and so on. According to the invention, producers, providers, and distributors of multimedia contents are able to make a profit from an advertisement through a service for multimedia contents including keyword-advertisement contents. A user is able to use the multimedia contents free of charge or at a low cost. In addition, convenient web-surfing to correspondent contents is enabled for a user through informative keyword-advertisement contents related to the currently-used multimedia contents and allows the user to acquire additional information. An advertiser enables a targeted advertisement for the users who listen to or watch the multimedia contents so that the advertiser may induce more traffic to the target website/webpage or other target advertisement contents. This invention can be utilized in a wired/wireless online advertisement industry, a multimedia contents industry, an information communication service industry, a visual industry such as a film, image, or music industry and so on.
Chopra (US 20080065620 A1) teaches methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer program products for generating key phrases for advertising are provided. In one implementation, a method is provided. The method includes receiving input from an advertising user specifying an advertisement that is associated with a particular landing page. A key phrase for the advertisement is automatically generated, the key phrase being generated based on features extracted from the landing page and based on empirical statistics derived from a corpus comprising corpus key phrases and web pages corresponding to the respective corpus key phrases.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEESHAN SHAIKH whose telephone number is (703)756-1730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571) 272-7602. 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.
/ZEESHAN MAHMOOD SHAIKH/Examiner, Art Unit 2658
/RICHEMOND DORVIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights