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
In amendments dated 2/2/26, Applicant amended claims 1, 9, and 19-36, canceled no claims, and added no new claims. Claims 1-36 are presented for examination.
Examiner notes the status of claim 17 is stated as Original but the claim was amended (“and store” is removed) so the status should be Currently Amended.
Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informality: the first limitation recites “receive a search query” but depends on claim 1 which also recites “generate a search user interface having at least one piece of content that matches a query,” so the antecedent basis of the search query is unclear.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informality: this claim recites “the processor” and claim 1 also recites a processor, so the antecedent basis of the processor in claim 5 is unclear.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informality: this claim depends on claim 19 and recites “the compute system” which lack antecedent basis.
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 1-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 19 each recites generating, by the processor of 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 confidence score for each different principle; adjusting, by the processor of the computer system, a particular score factor for a particular piece of content in response to a scenario that affects the particular piece of content; and aggregating, by the processor of the computer system, each score of the plurality of score factors for the particular piece of content and the adjusted particular score factor for the particular piece of content to generate a quality score for the particular piece of content. Generating a plurality of score factors, adjusting a score factor, and aggregating each score are each recited broadly and are mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Each claim recites the additional elements of retrieving a plurality of pieces of content, which is data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity; storing, for the particular piece of content, the quality score and the score for each of the score factors including the adjusted particular score factor, which is an output step and also insignificant extra-solution activity; and generating a search user interface having at least one piece of content that matches a query and the stored quality score for the at least one piece of content, which is an output step and also insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 1 recites a computer system having a processor and instructions, which are generic components of a computer system. Examiner notes specification paragraph 0004 states search results are often not the most relevant to a user’s search due to sponsored listings and paragraph 0005 describes search engines as not performing quality checks on results and said results are often biased towards the authors’ view of the results or include contradictions or inconsistencies in a story or the user may not be aware of the poor quality of a story, and it would be desirable to assess the quality of a story and provide that assessment to a user along with the search results. Specification paragraph 0006 says most stories are written with a bias and it would also be desirable to be able to assess the political lean of a story and provide an assessment of the political lean of a story to the user along with the story. Paragraph 0029 describes the invention as addressing these issues by generating a quality assessment and a political lean assessment using machine learning techniques. Paragraph 0030 discuss further technical features of the invention as involving quality scoring and political lean detection for news articles and AI based scoring, and paragraph 0031 describes benefits of the technical solutions such as accuracy improvements for scoring detectors and data augmentation techniques. System latency is decreased and users have increased understanding of search results. Some of these features are not claimed and 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 data gathering step and the output step are each recited broadly and amount to receiving and sending data across a network per figure 1 104 and the communication path in paragraphs 0032-0033, which are routine and conventional activities per the list of routine and conventional activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II, and the storing step is routine and conventional activity also per the list of routine and conventional activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The computer system having a processor and instructions are 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, 6, 20, and 24 each recites aggregating the plurality of score factors for each piece of content other than the particular piece of content to generate the quality score for each piece of content other than the particular piece of content, and aggregating data is recited broadly and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper, and storing, for each piece of content other than the particular piece of content, the quality score and the score of each of the plurality of score factors, and storing data is routine and convention per the list of routine and conventional activities in MPEP 2106.05(d). Claims 3, 7, 21, and 25 each recites generating an explanation for the scenario that caused the adjusted particular score factor, and generating data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 4, 8, 22, and 26 each recites a display that displays the quality score for the particular piece of content and the explanation of the scenario that caused the adjusted particular score factor, and a display is a generically recited component of a computer system and displaying data is recited broadly and amounts to receiving data across a network per figure 1 104 and the communication path in paragraphs 0032-0033, which is routine and convention per the list of routine and conventional activities in MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claims 5 and 23 each recites a search computer system having a processor and a plurality of lines of instructions, which are generic components of a computer system, that are executed by the processor that is configured to: receiving a search query having one or more query terms, which is recited broadly and amounts to receiving data across a network per figure 1 104 and the communication path in paragraphs 0032-0033, which is routine and convention per the list of routine and conventional activities in MPEP 2106.05(d); retrieving one or more pieces of content including the particular piece of content that match the one or more query terms, which is recited broadly and amounts to receiving data across a network per figure 1 104 and the communication path in paragraphs 0032-0033, which is routine and convention per the list of routine and conventional activities in MPEP 2106.05(d); retrieving the quality score, the score of each of the plurality of score factors including the adjusted particular score factor from the computer system, which is recited broadly and amounts to receiving data across a network per figure 1 104 and the communication path in paragraphs 0032-0033, which is routine and convention per the list of routine and conventional activities in MPEP 2106.05(d); and generating a search user interface having a summary of the particular piece of content, the quality score and the score of each of the plurality of score factors and the adjusted particular score factor for the particular piece of content, and generating data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper.
Claims 9 and 27 each recites wherein each score factor is displayed as one of low, medium and high, which is recited broadly and amounts to receiving data across a network per figure 1 104 and the communication path in paragraphs 0032-0033, which is routine and convention per the list of routine and conventional activities in MPEP 2106.05(d). Claims 10 and 28 each recites wherein the plurality of score factors are a source factor, an industry standard factor and a document type factor, and the score factors are data and mental processes accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 11 and 29 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 the score factors are data and mental processes accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 12 and 30 each recites crawling the plurality of pieces of content, ingesting the crawled plurality of pieces of content and performing machine learning to generate the quality score for each piece of content, and crawling data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper, ingesting data is recited broadly and amounts to receiving data across a network per figure 1 104 and the communication path in paragraphs 0032-0033, which is routine and convention per the list of routine and conventional activities in MPEP 2106.05(d), and performing machine learning is recited broadly and is not significantly more then the recited mental processes per Recentive Analytics v. Fox Broadcasting Corp. (134 F.4th 1205, 2025 U.S.P.Q.2d 628).
Claims 13 and 31 each recites wherein each score factor is a journalistic principle, and a score factor is data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 14 and 32 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 the score factors are data and mental processes accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 15 and 33 each recites generating a filter user interface to adjust the quality scoring for each matching piece of content, and generating a filter user interface is generating data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 16 and 34 each recites wherein each piece of content is a news piece of content, and content is data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 17 and 35 each recites Claims 17 and 35 each recites generating, for the particular piece of content, a political lean score indicating a political bias of the particular piece of content, an generating data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper, and storing the political lean score for the particular piece of content, and storing data is routine and convention per the list of routine and conventional activities in MPEP 2106.05(d). Claims 18 and 36 each recites generate the quality score for each piece of content using a transformer-based neural network, and generating a score is generating data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper, and using a neural network is applying it and not significantly more then the recited mental processes per Recentive Analytics v. Fox Broadcasting Corp. (134 F.4th 1205, 2025 U.S.P.Q.2d 628).
Relevant Prior Art
During his search for prior art, Examiner found the following reference to be relevant to Applicant's claimed invention. Said reference is listed on the Notice of References form included in this office action:
Kim et al (US 20220147556) teaches obtaining a content item and obtaining crowdsourced belief ratings and then scores for that content item at two different times and comparing the two scores to obtain an expert score for output to a user, does not teach generating a plurality of score factors and aggregating said score factors to create a quality score for output to a user (paragraphs 0008, 0011, 0092 figure 10).
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding Examiner’s claim construction statement in Examiner’s 10/2/25 office action, Examiner acknowledges claims 1-36 are numbered correctly. Regarding objections to claims 20, 22-23, 27-28, 30-31, and 34-36 for reciting a system claim but depending on a method claim, in view of amendments reciting system claims, these objections are withdrawn. Regarding objections to claims 17 and 35 for antecedent basis of storing,” in view of amendments removing this action, these objections are withdrawn. Regarding rejections of claims 1-36 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the indefinite terms “document principle” or “a violation of a document principle,” in view of amendments reciting “a confidence score for each type of different principle” instead, these rejections are withdrawn. Regarding rejections of claims 1-36 under 35 U.S.C. 10-1 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. On pages 9-10 of his Remarks, Applicant discusses Step 2A Prong 2 and asserts the claims recite an improvement to the technical field of “assessment of the quality of a piece of content.” Examiner disagrees as the claim limitations are still broad and lack inventive details sowing how the claimed invention improves the assessment of the quality of a piece of content. Examiner does not believe the amended claims are like those in the Enfish or Ex Parte Desjardins cases as the claims in Enfish were found to have recited an improvement in computer technology (self-referential table) and the claims in Ex Parte Desjardins were found to have recited a software improvement (improvements in machine learning technology), but the instant claims recite conclusive statements of generating score factors, adjusting a score factor, and aggregating a score without details of how said generating, adjusting, or aggregating occurs that may show such an improvement.
On pages 11-12 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant discusses Step 2B and asserts the additional elements of the claims recite significantly more than the recited mental processes. Examiner disagrees as the additional elements recite receiving pieces of content, storing the quality score and an adjusted score factor, and generating a user interface having a piece of content and a quality score, which are each generic functions of a computer and are routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II as shown above. Taking the claims as a whole, these additional elements combined with the mental process steps do not amount to significantly more than those mental process steps. Applicant also asserts Examiner’s analysis is at odds with the Cooperative Entertainment Inc. v Kollective Technology Inc. and Gree Inc. v Supercell Oy cases but does not say how.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 2/27/26