DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1-16 and 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. Regarding claim 1, the following limitation does not appear to be described clearly, “common index”, see claim 1 line 4; and the disclosure at paragraph 0089. “Given the analysis of entity data to create topic and interaction models that can be used to represent entities in a common index. Referring to FIG. 1, step 130, this index can be then be shared with that can be applied to each entity. And, given the automated methods of profiling entities with embodiments of the entity profiling system, this index can be created with minimal intervention from the users of the system.”
The limitations of claim 20 parallels claim 1; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale. Claims 2-16 are rejected based on dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-20 the limitation “user profile” is vague. The scope of the meaning of the term is vague. Note the disclosure appears to describes a topic profile and interaction profile. Note the disclosure at paragraphs 0062, 0066-0067, 0069, and figure 1 flow chart steps 116 and 126 topic profiles and interaction profiles. Clarification is requested.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 20 are is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102b as being anticipated by Reichling et al. Matching Human Actors based on their Texts: Design and Evaluation of an Instance of the ExpertFinding Framework.
Regarding claim 1, Reichling et al. teaches the following:
A method comprising [note: Abstract, “integrating standard methods of text analysis, we extract and match user profiles based on a large collection of documents”, the ExpertFinder Framework measures the similarity of profiles]::
by a computing device, accessing one or more user profile reflecting one or more attribute of a plurality of users [note: page 61, “create and store user profile by interpreting structured data, such as histories of interaction, Java source code, standard comments … classification schemes within repositories, etc.”; ; page 62, section 2.1, user preferences and attributes are taken into account, generating uer profiles (history data, documents, social network), analyzes user emails and common attributes; page 63 section 2.2 Methods for Automated text analysis, generates the profile ];
the one or more attribute comprising one or more attribute from a common index [note: page 63 common reference; figure 2 ];
by a computing device, accessing a first user profile from the one or more user profile wherein the first user profile is specific to a first user [note: page 61-64 ];
by a computing device, accessing a second user profile from the one or more user profile wherein the second user profile is specific to a second user [note: page 64-65 , figure 2]; and
by a computing device, identifying a degree of attribute similarity between the first user and the second user based on at least one of the one or more attribute of the first user and at least one of the one or more attributes of the second user [note: page 64, “measure similarity”, page 65 creating profiles and comparing profiles; figure 3 matching of different user profiles ].
Claim 2: The method of claim 1 further comprising automatically determining the one or more attribute from one or more email [note: page 62, section 2.1 analyzes emails ].
Claim 3: The method of claim 1 further comprising automatically determining the one or more attribute from an electronic file stored on a memory of a computer of at least one of the first user or the second user [note: page 63 means for profile matching ].
The limitations of claim 20 parallel claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or on an international application by another who has fulfilled the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of section 371(c) of this title before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.
The changes made to 35 U.S.C. 102(e) by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 do not apply when the reference is a U.S. patent resulting directly or indirectly from an international application filed before November 29, 2000. Therefore, the prior art date of the reference is determined under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior to the amendment by the AIPA (pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by US Patent 8,484,083 B2.
Regarding claim 17, Basu et al. teaches the following:
A processor-based method of creating a user profile of a user, the method comprising [note: Figure 1, paragraph 0019, “profile information collected in step 110 (i.e. creating a profile)” ]:
receiving an information specific to a first user [note: figure 1, (110) collect user interactions and profile information ];
determining a first attribute from the information [note: column 3 line 5 through column 4 line 27, determine a relative strength of relationship among the users in the network ; column 4 lines 28-51 additional constraints may be added ];
the first attribute corresponding to a topic for a global topic model [note: figure 1, (130) determine global topic model ];
determining a second attribute from the information [note column 3 line 5 through column 4 line 27 ];
the second attribute corresponding to an interaction for a global interaction model [note: column 3 line 5 through column 4 line 27 ]; and
determining a first user profile for the first user including the topic and the interaction [note: column 3 lines 5-18, “method 100 generates a set of global soft constraints” , developed by predefined rules that dictate users who share similar tastes form a group; column 8 lines 14-36 ].
Claim 18: The method of claim 17 wherein the topic represents a domain knowledge of the first user [note: column 4 lines 6-27 global topic model].
Claim 19: The method of claim 17 wherein the interaction represents a communication of the first user.[note: column 2 lines 30-54 interactions; figure 1 ].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRETA ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, 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.
/GRETA L ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169