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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on May 26, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 26, 2026.
The IDS, filed May 24, 2026, has been considered.
Claims 1-7, filed February 07, 2026, are being examined on the merits.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 recite a method which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 recites “identifying…a relevancy score”, “calculating a set of affinity scores…”, and “modifying the relevancy score…” at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind. This interpretation appears in line with the specification which describes “the affinity scoring engine 130 in this example (1) performs the affinity determination for content that is pre-processed (e.g., classified) to generate a relevancy score of the content and several industries to which the content is identified as relevant …” (page 6, lines 4-11). Therefore, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for generic computer components. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”).
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. 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.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus taken alone, the individual elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim 2 recites modifying the relevancy score associated with the particular content item comprises calculating a weighted sum of the set of affinity scores. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 3 recites modifying the relevancy score associated with the particular content item comprises normalizing the relevancy score associated with the particular content item and the set of affinity scores. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites the set of categories is a set of industries. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites each glossary associated with a particular category in the set of categories comprises a set of words and a corresponding set of glossary word scores that each represents the probability that a given content item is related to the particular category when the content item contains the word associated with the glossary word score. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites the particular content item comprises a word that is identified as an entity. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 7 recites the set of categories to which the particular content item is classified as related based on a business web graph comprising a node that represents the entity and a set of nodes that represents the set of categories. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. US 12248439 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the allowed claims are directed to an embodiment of the instant claim invention.
19048352
US 12248439 B2
1. A method for determining a relatedness of content items to categories, the method comprising:
identifying a particular content item, a relevancy score associated with the particular content item, and a set of categories to which the particular content item is classified as related;
based on a set of glossaries associated with the set of categories, calculating a set of affinity scores that each represents a degree of relevancy between the particular content item and a category in the set of categories; and
modifying the relevancy score associated with the particular content item based on the calculated set of affinity scores.
1. A system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing code stored therein for determining a relatedness of content items to categories, wherein when executed the code causes the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: pre-processing content to obtain information in the content, classify the content as pertaining to one or more categories based on the information, and organizing the content in terms of relevancy to categories; identifying a particular content item of the pre-processed content, a relevancy score associated with the particular content item, and a set of categories to which the particular content item is classified as related;
generating glossaries associated with the set of categories, wherein generating each glossary of the glossaries comprises: using a glossary manager: directing a word stemming module to stem words in a collection of content to reduce words to a base form;
receiving the collection of content with the words stemmed;
identifying business content that is tagged to a particular category using a word frequency module and a glossary word score module to calculate glossary word scores for words that occur in the content tagged to the particular category; and applying a frequency threshold when generating the glossary and excluding a particular word in the glossary when the particular word does not occur in at least a predetermined number of pieces of content that is tagged to the particular category:
based on probability values in the set of glossaries associated with the set of categories, calculating a set of affinity scores that each represent a degree of relevancy between the particular content item and a category in the set of categories, wherein each glossary associated with a particular category in the set of categories comprises a set of words and a corresponding set of glossary word scores that represent the probability values that a given content items are related to the particular category when the content items contain the word associated with the glossary word score; and
modifying the relevancy score associated with the particular content item based on the calculated set of affinity scores.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein modifying the relevancy score associated with the particular content item comprises calculating a weighted sum of the set of affinity scores based on degrees to which the set of categories is classified as related to the particular content item.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein modifying the relevancy score associated with the particular content item comprises calculating a weighted sum of the set of affinity scores based on degrees to which the set of categories is classified as related to the particular content item.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein modifying the relevancy score associated with the particular content item comprises normalizing the relevancy score associated with the particular content item and the set of affinity scores.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein modifying the relevancy score associated with the particular content item comprises normalizing the relevancy score associated with the particular content item and the set of affinity scores.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the set of categories is a set of industries.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the set of categories is a set of industries.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the particular content item comprises a word that is identified as an entity.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the particular content item comprises a word that is identified as an entity.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the set of categories to which the particular content item is classified as related is based on a business web graph comprising a node that represents the entity and a set of nodes that represents the set of categories.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the set of categories to which the particular content item is classified as related is based on a business web graph comprising a node that represents the entity and a set of nodes that represents the set of categories.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the code is further executable by the one or more processors to cause the processor to perform: identifying a set of glossaries, each glossary associated with a category in the set of categories and comprising a set of (i) words and (ii) corresponding glossary word scores that each represents the probability that a given content item is related to the category when the content item contains the word associated with the glossary word score.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the code is further executable by the one or more processors to cause the processor to perform: identifying a set of glossaries, each glossary associated with a category in the set of categories and comprising a set of (i) words and (ii) corresponding glossary word scores that each represents the probability that a given content item is related to the category when the content item contains the word associated with the glossary word score.
BASIS FOR DOUBLE PATENTING
The allowed claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. US 12248439 B2 are directed to a specific embodiment of the instant claim invention, therefore, claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. US 12248439 B2 reasonably anticipates claims 1-7 of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 2, and 4-8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Fuks et al. (Fuks hereafter, US 2003/0018659 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Fuks discloses A method for determining a relatedness of content items to categories, the method comprising:identifying a particular content item, a relevancy score associated with the particular content item, and a set of categories to which the particular content item is classified as related (page 3, [0049], e.g. document-category classification scores); based on a set of glossaries (page 1, [0010], e.g. propositions are taken from a predefined list, and [0012], e.g. A list of keywords that are related to each proposition is defined in advance, and then a proposition is offered, once its related keywords are used in the query) associated with the set of categories, calculating a set of affinity scores that each represents a degree of relevancy between the particular content item and a category in the set of categories (page 3, [0050], e.g. category relevancy scores are calculated); andmodifying the relevancy score associated with the particular content item based on the calculated set of affinity scores (page 4, [0057], e.g. it may be required to re-calculate some or all of the Document-category classification scores, e.g. in the case that the corpus of documents is determined dynamically, or is modified (i.e. new documents are added and/or existing documents are modified), and/or the list of categories change, and/or the profile of some or all of the categories change).
In regard to claim 2, Fuks wherein modifying the relevancy score associated withthe particular content item comprises calculating a weighted sum of the set of affinity scoresbased on degrees to which the set of categories is classified as related to the particular contentitem (page 4, [0057], e.g. it may be required to re-calculate some or all of the Document-category classification scores, e.g. in the case that the corpus of documents is determined dynamically, or is modified (i.e. new documents are added and/or existing documents are modified), and/or the list of categories change, and/or the profile of some or all of the categories change).
In regard to claim 4, Fuks discloses the set of categories is a set of industries (Figure 5, e.g. Category of Humor TV show).
In regard to claim 5, Fuks discloses wherein each glossary associated with a particularcategory in the set of categories comprises a set of words and a corresponding set of glossary word scores that each represents the probability that a given content item is related to the particular category when the content item contains the word associated with the glossary word score (page 1, [0010], e.g. propositions are taken from a predefined list, and [0012], e.g. A list of keywords that are related to each proposition is defined in advance, and then a proposition is offered, once its related keywords are used in the query, and page 3, [0050], e.g. category relevancy scores are calculated).
In regard to claim 6, Fuks discloses wherein the particular content item comprises a word that is identified as an entity ([0012], e.g. A list of keywords that are related to each proposition is defined in advance, and then a proposition is offered, once its related keywords are used in the query).
In regard to claim 7, Fuks discloses the set of categories to which the particular content item is classified as related based on a business web graph comprising a node that represents the entity and a set of nodes that represents the set of categories (page 1, [0007], e.g. displayed in hierarchical form, e.g. a category tree).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fuks et al. (Fuks hereafter, US 2003/0018659 A1), as applied to claims 1, 2, and 4-7 in further view of Schultz (US 5,640,553 A).
In regard to claim 3, Fuks discloses the claimed invention except for the limitation modifying the relevancy score associated with the particular content item comprises normalizing the relevancy score associated with the particular content item and the set of affinity scores. Schultz discloses normalizing the relevancy score associated with the particular content item and the set of affinity scores (column 25, lines 10-24, e.g. relevance normalization). Fuks discloses an improvement to provide better mechanism of matching propositions in queries in order to increase the probability that the user will indeed use the propositions (page 2, [0017]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated by Fuks to improve the disclose method with the normalizing of Schultz for improvement to provide better mechanism of matching propositions in queries in order to increase the probability that the user will indeed use the propositions. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Fuks to improve the disclose method with the normalizing of Schultz for improvement to provide better mechanism of matching propositions in queries in order to increase the probability that the user will indeed use the propositions. The benefit would be to provide better mechanism of matching propositions in queries in order to increase the probability that the user will indeed use the propositions.
PERTINENT PRIOR ART
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McLane et al. (US 20060253423 A1) discloses document is flagged for each category for which the comparison of its signature 71 and the category signature 35 produce a level of relevance that exceeds a predetermined threshold. A flagged document 73 is then indexed and stored in the indexed and flagged data store 27 ([0042]). At step 77 the first category signature 35 is retrieved. At step 78 the two signatures are applied to a process that compares their relevancy. A score is generated by this process indicating a level of relevancy between the document signature 71 and the category signature 35. Next, at step 79, the signature comparator 23 determines if all of the category signatures 37 have been compared to the document signature 71. If another category signature 35 exists, it is retrieved at step 77 and processing continues. If no such category signature 35 exists, it is determined, at step 80, for which category the document had the highest relevancy score. The highest relevancy score is compared, at step 81, to a first predetermined threshold to determine if it exceeds the minimum score necessary to be relevant. If the relevancy score does not exceed the first predetermined threshold, the document is indexed and stored, at step 82, in the indexed and flagged data store 27 ([0043]).
CONCLUSION
Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO's Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO's Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO's PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public.
For all other customer support, please call the USPTO Call Center (UCC) at 800-786-9199. The USPTO's official fax number is 571-272-8300.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. Dune Ly, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0716. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi, can be reached on 571-272-4078.
/Cheyne D Ly/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152
5/2/2023
Prosecution Insights