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
Per MPEP 2001.06(b), Examiner notes that he has reviewed all cited prior art in related applications 18/220,437, 18/582,111, 18/243,588, and 18/392,402.
Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informality: this claim depends on claims B14, which is not a claim.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 14 each recites generating, by the computer system, a plurality of score factors for each piece of content of the plurality of pieces of content, each score factor having a score representing a degree of violation by each piece of content of a different document principle; and aggregating, by the computer system, each score of the plurality of score factors to generate a quality score for each piece of content;. Generating score factors and aggregating each score are recited broadly and are mental processes accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Each claim recites additional elements of retrieving, by a computer system having a processor and a plurality of lines of instructions that are executed by the processor, a plurality of pieces of content; and storing, by the computer system for each piece of content, the quality score and the score for each of the score factors, and retrieving pieces of content and storing scores and score factors are each insignificant extra-solution activities. Claim 1 recites a computer system having a processor and lines of instructions, and the processor and instructions are each generic components of a computer system. Examiner notes specification paragraph 0004 discusses how search results may or may not be the most relevant results based on a query. Paragraph 0005 describes most search engines do not perform any quality check on the search results and that it would be desirable to assess the quality of each story for the reader and provide an assessment of the article quality to the reader with search results, and paragraph 0006 states most stories and articles returned in search results today are written with a bias or written from a particular political perspective, and it would be desirable to be able to assess the political lean of each story for the reader and provide an assessment of the political lean of each story to the reader with search results. Paragraphs 0029-0031 provide techniques and solutions to address these drawbacks but most of these are not claimed. Also, the claim steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, the retrieving and storing steps are routine and conventional activities in the art per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The processor and instructions are each still generic components of a computer system. Thus the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Claims 2 and 15 each recites receiving, at a search computer system having a processor and a plurality of lines of instructions that are executed by the processor, a search query having one or more query terms, which is recited broadly and amounts to receiving data across a network per specification figure 1 communications path 104, and is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II; retrieving, by the search computer system, one or more pieces of content that match the one or more query terms, and retrieving data from a memory is routine and conventional activity in the art per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II; retrieving, by the search computer system, the quality score and score of each of the plurality of score factors from the computer system, and retrieving data from a memory is routine and conventional activity in the art per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II; and generating, by the search computer system, a search user interface having a summary of each of the matching one or more pieces of content, the quality score and the score of each of the plurality of score factors for each matching piece of content, and generating a search interface is generating data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 3 and 16 each recites wherein the degree of violation of the principle is one of low, medium and high, which are each data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 4 and 17 each recites wherein the plurality of score factors are a source factor, an industry standard factor and a document type factor, and factors are data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper.
Claims 5 and 18 each recites wherein the plurality of score factors are a byline factor, a title exaggeration factor, a subjectivity factor, a clickbait factor, a personal attack factor and a lack of site disclosure factor, and factors are data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 6 and 19 each recites crawling, by the computer system, the plurality of pieces of content, and crawling is recited using a generic computer as a tool and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper; ingesting, by the computer system, the crawled plurality of pieces of content, and ingesting the crawled data is storing them and is routine and conventional activity in the art per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II; and performing, by the computer system, machine learning to generate the quality score for each piece of content, and applying machine learning is a mental process per Recentive Analytics v. Fox Broadcasting Corp. (134 F.4th 1205, 2025 U.S.P.Q.2d 628). Claims 7 and 20 each recites generating, by the search computer system, a search factors user interface that displays the plurality of score factors that together generate the quality score, and generating an interface is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper.
Claims 8 and 21 each recites wherein each score factor is a journalistic principle, and a principle is data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 9 and 22 each recites wherein the plurality of score factors include a source factor, an industry standard factor, a document type factor, a byline factor, a title exaggeration factor, a subjectivity factor, a clickbait factor, a personal attack factor and a site disclosure factor, and factors are data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 10 and 23 each recites generating, by the search computer system, a filter user interface to adjust the quality scoring for each matching piece of content, and generating an interface is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 11 and 24 each recites wherein each piece of content is a news piece of content, and news content is data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper.
Claims 12 and 25 each recites generating and storing, by the computer system for each piece of content, a political lean score indicating a political bias of the piece of content and wherein generating the search user interface further comprises generating the search user interface having a summary of each of the matching piece of content and the stored quality score and political lean score for each matching piece of content, and generating an interface is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper and storing data is routine and conventional activity in the art per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 13 and 2 each recites wherein the computer system generates the quality score for each piece of content using a transformer-based neural network, and using a neural network is a mental process per Recentive Analytics v. Fox Broadcasting Corp. (134 F.4th 1205, 2025 U.S.P.Q.2d 628).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102
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 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raniere (US 20170177717).
With respect to claims 1 and 14, Raniere teaches:
retrieving, by a computer system having a processor and a plurality of lines of instructions that are executed by the processor, a plurality of pieces of content (paragraph 0038 retrieving and analyzing a plurality of articles, tiers of analysis includes retrieving and analyzing pieces of content from articles);
generating, by the computer system, a plurality of score factors for each piece of content of the plurality of pieces of content, each score factor having a score representing a degree of violation by each piece of content of a different document principle (paragraph 0030 rating for each category of journalistic distortion for the extent of said distortion, and distortion is described in paragraphs 0015, 0073, and 0076, also paragraphs 0031-0036 analyzing individual tiers of content for distortion in each article);
aggregating, by the computer system, each score of the plurality of score factors to generate a quality score for each piece of content (paragraph 0037 aggregating ratings to make overall rating for validity of an article); and
storing, by the computer system for each piece of content, the quality score and the score for each of the score factors (paragraph 0043 ratings for articles displayed on website thus stored, also paragraph 0048 ratings and overall ratings stored).
With respect to claim 1, Raniere teaches a computer system with a processor and instructions (figure 1, paragraph 0043).
With respect to claims 2 and 15, Raniere teaches:
receiving, at a search computer system having a processor and a plurality of lines of instructions that are executed by the processor, a search query having one or more query terms (paragraph 0049 user search with terms of an article, topic, country etc.),
retrieving, by the search computer system, one or more pieces of content that match the one or more query terms (paragraph 0049 user search among articles so pieces of content retrieved),
retrieving, by the search computer system, the quality score and score of each of the plurality of score factors from the computer system (paragraph 0049 retrieved ratings for articles, comparisons between articles) and
generating, by the search computer system, a search user interface having a summary of each of the matching one or more pieces of content, the quality score and the score of each of the plurality of score factors for each matching piece of content (paragraphs 0049-0050 generate an interface for users with articles and ratings).
With respect to claims 3 and 16, Raniere teaches wherein the degree of violation of the principle is one of low, medium and high (paragraph 0076 thresholds of ratings described like low, medium, and high distortion).
With respect to claims 4 and 17, Raniere teaches wherein the plurality of score factors are a source factor, an industry standard factor and a document type factor (paragraph 0049 comparing ratings per news source (source factor)).
With respect to claims 5 and 18, Raniere teaches wherein the plurality of score factors are a byline factor, a title exaggeration factor, a subjectivity factor, a clickbait factor, a personal attack factor and a lack of site disclosure factor (paragraph 0068 subjectivity in article when a journalist is angry or said leads to distortions (subjectivity factor)).
With respect to claims 7 and 20, Raniere teaches generating, by the search computer system, a search factors user interface that displays the plurality of score factors that together generate the quality score (paragraph 0045 display analysis with ratings on an interface).
With respect to claims 8 and 21, Raniere teaches wherein each score factor is a journalistic principle (paragraph 0015 journalistic principles described for distortion).
With respect to claims 9 and 22, Raniere teaches wherein the plurality of score factors include a source factor, an industry standard factor, a document type factor, a byline factor, a title exaggeration factor, a subjectivity factor, a clickbait factor, a personal attack factor and a site disclosure factor (paragraph 0068 subjectivity in factors for distortion).
With respect to claims 10 and 23, Raniere teaches generating, by the search computer system, a filter user interface to adjust the quality scoring for each matching piece of content (paragraphs 0027-0028 user input to adjust dictionaries for genres of articles, paragraph 0029 affects distortions of articles and thus ratings).
With respect to claims 11 and 24, Raniere teaches wherein each piece of content is a news piece of content (paragraph 0027 news content).
With respect to claims 12 and 25, Raniere teaches generating and storing, by the computer system for each piece of content, a political lean score indicating a political bias of the piece of content and wherein generating the search user interface further comprises generating the search user interface having a summary of each of the matching piece of content and the stored quality score and political lean score for each matching piece of content (paragraph 0015 distortion can also be a rating for bias or political leaning, paragraph 0054 display report with ratings and summary of analysis for ratings).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571 270-5626. 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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 10/31/25