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 .
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 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.
This office action is in response to the communication filed on 4/9/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “a comparison module”, “a query module”, “an analysis module”, “an integration module”, in claims 12-16.
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 § 112
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 12-16 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.
Claim limitations “a comparison module”, “a query module”, “an analysis module”, “an integration module” configured to implement functions, in claims 12-16, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In fact, the specification provides no disclosure of the claimed modules. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are indefinite and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Ridder (US 2022/0405481) in view of Nijjer (US 2014/0108369).
As to claim 1, De Ridder discloses a method for improving the search engine optimization (SEO) ranking of a first website, comprising the steps of:
A. identifying a second website having a higher SEO ranking than the first website (fig. 1, [0020], [0021], identifying a least one top ranked website that has better SEO than a site (or a document or a user content portion) being generated by a user, [0022], [0034], identify target content portions that have better SEO);
B. utilizing a large language model (LLM) ([0004], generative-AI) to analyze the content of the second website and determine a plurality of topics answered by the content of the second website ([0022], key phrases (or sets of key words) that are included (answered) by one or more target content portions. The target content portions are combined to generate a target content model);
C. comparing the content of the first website to the content of the second website ([0025], fig. 1, #106, 108, 115, comparing the content model of the user content portion with the target content model) to determine, for each of the plurality of topics, whether the first website:
i. provides an equivalent answer, ii. does not answer the topic, or iii. partially answers the topic ([0025], The result of this comparison operation is a content-intent relevancy score 115 for the particular key phrase, and this result facilitates a determination by the system whether (and to what extent) the document needs to be changed or the text otherwise adjusted. Thus, based on the comparison (and the relevancy scoring), the system generates one or more content recommendations or additional information that is then output to the end user; [0067], Representative cues may be green (means the ideas are semantically covered), yellow (means the ideas are partly covered), and gray (means the ideas are not covered)); and
D. generating updated content for the first website based on the results of the comparison between the content of the first website to the content of the second website to improve the SEO ranking ([0067], The user may then select any of this third party content (e.g., a paragraph), and the editor then quotes that paragraph into the user's own article (e.g., at the current cursor position), and potentially adds an attribution. The editor preferably also includes a button or the like that enables the user to add the segment to his or her copy, but after the AI rewrites the competing paragraph to change the expression while retaining the idea. This enables the user to cover the idea semantically while avoiding copying of any protected expression.)
De Ridder does not explicitly disclose a topic comprises a question.
Nijjer discloses a topic comprises a question (Fig. 4, fig. 5, [0071], [0073], [0074], determining most recommended questions answered by other “sites like yours”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Nijjer’s teachings of determining sites that answer questions to De Ridder/s teachings of improving SEO by key phrases answered by top ranked searched sites in order to expand De Ridder’s concept of key phrases to include questions by combining key phrases with relevant key words such as "who," "what," "when," "where," "why" and "how" (Nijjer, [0071].)
As to claim 12, De Ridder discloses a system for enhancing content of a first website using artificial intelligence, comprising:
A. a comparison module configured to identify a second website having a higher SEO ranking than the first website (fig. 1, [0020], [0021], identifying a least one top ranked website that has better SEO than a site (or a document or a user content portion) being generated by a user, [0022], [0034], identify target content portions that have better SEO, [0080], [0084], hardware for executing processes);
B. a query module configured to use a large language model (LLM) to determine a plurality of topics answered by the second website ([0022], key phrases (or sets of key words) that are included (answered) by one or more target content portions. The target content portions are combined to generate a target content model);
C. an analysis module configured to determine whether the first website answers each topic by i. providing an equivalent answer, ii. not answering the topic, or iii. partially answering the topic ([0025], fig. 1, #106, 108, 115, comparing the content model of the user content portion with the target content model. The result of this comparison operation is a content-intent relevancy score 115 for the particular key phrase, and this result facilitates a determination by the system whether (and to what extent) the document needs to be changed or the text otherwise adjusted. Thus, based on the comparison (and the relevancy scoring), the system generates one or more content recommendations or additional information that is then output to the end user; [0067], Representative cues may be green (means the ideas are semantically covered), yellow (means the ideas are partly covered), and gray (means the ideas are not covered); and
D. a generation module configured to use the LLM to generate enhanced content to supplement or replace existing content on the first website based on the analysis; and E. an integration module configured to insert the enhanced content into the first website ([0067], The user may then select any of this third party content (e.g., a paragraph), and the editor then quotes that paragraph into the user's own article (e.g., at the current cursor position), and potentially adds an attribution. The editor preferably also includes a button or the like that enables the user to add the segment to his or her copy, but after the AI rewrites the competing paragraph to change the expression while retaining the idea. This enables the user to cover the idea semantically while avoiding copying of any protected expression.)
De Ridder does not explicitly disclose a topic comprises a question.
Nijjer discloses a topic comprises a question (Fig. 4, fig. 5, [0071], [0073], [0074], determining most recommended questions answered by other “sites like yours”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Nijjer’s teachings of determining sites that answer questions to De Ridder/s teachings of improving SEO by key phrases answered by top ranked searched sites in order to expand De Ridder’s concept of key phrases to include questions by combining key phrases with relevant key words such as "who," "what," "when," "where," "why" and "how" (Nijjer, [0071].)
As to claim 17, De Ridder discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium ([0083]) storing instructions that, when: executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
A. identify a second website with a higher SEO ranking than a first website (fig. 1, [0020], [0021], identifying a least one top ranked website that has better SEO than a site (or a document or a user content portion) being generated by a user, [0022], [0034], identify target content portions that have better SEO);
B. analyze the content of the second website using a large language model (LLM) to extract a list of topics answered by the content ([0022], key phrases (sets of key words) that are included (answered) by one or more target content portions. The target content portions are combined to generate a target content model);
C. compare the topics and corresponding answers from the second website to content on the first website to determine whether the content is equivalent, does not answer the topics, or partially answers the topic ([0025], The result of this comparison operation is a content-intent relevancy score 115 for the particular key phrase, and this result facilitates a determination by the system whether (and to what extent) the document needs to be changed or the text otherwise adjusted. Thus, based on the comparison (and the relevancy scoring), the system generates one or more content recommendations or additional information that is then output to the end user; [0067], Representative cues may be green (means the ideas are semantically covered), yellow (means the ideas are partly covered), and gray (means the ideas are not covered); and
D. generate enhanced content for the first website, using the LLM, to provide missing information identified during the comparison ([0067], The user may then select any of this third party content (e.g., a paragraph), and the editor then quotes that paragraph into the user's own article (e.g., at the current cursor position), and potentially adds an attribution. The editor preferably also includes a button or the like that enables the user to add the segment to his or her copy, but after the AI rewrites the competing paragraph to change the expression while retaining the idea. This enables the user to cover the idea semantically while avoiding copying of any protected expression.)
De Ridder does not explicitly disclose a topic comprises a question.
Nijjer discloses a topic comprises a question (Fig. 4, fig. 5, [0071], [0073], [0074], determining most recommended questions answered by other “sites like yours”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Nijjer’s teachings of determining sites that answer questions to De Ridder/s teachings of improving SEO by key phrases answered by top ranked searched sites in order to expand De Ridder’s concept of key phrases to include questions by combining key phrases with relevant key words such as "who," "what," "when," "where," "why" and "how" (Nijjer, [0071].)
As to claim 2, De Ridder-Nijjer discloses the step of determining whether the first website answers a question further comprises the step of querying the LLM using the content of the first website (De Ridder, fig. 4a, 400-402, fig. 5a, 509-512, Nijjer, [0071]-[0074]).
As to claim 3, De Ridder-Nijjer discloses the step of generating an answer to each unanswered question (De Ridder, [0067], [0062], content generation for not (or partially) covered ideas/ key phrases/ questions) using the LLM in the tone and style of the first website ([0057], [0062], maintaining tone and style of the user content portion, Nijjer, fig. 5, questions)).
As to claim 4, De Ridder-Nijjer discloses the updated content further comprises merged excerpts from both the first website and the second website for equivalently answered questions (De Ridder, [0067], merge (cover the idea semantically while avoiding copying of any protected expression) user content that is covered with green target content, Nijjer, fig. 5, questions).
As to claim 5, De Ridder-Nijjer discloses for partially answered questions, a sub-question is identified and answered using the LLM (De Ridder, [0067], merge user content that is partly covered with yellow target content, Nijjer, fig. 5, questions).
As to claim 6, De Ridder discloses the step of inserting the updated content into a relevant section of the first website ([0067], add the segment to his or her copy, but after the AI rewrites the competing paragraph to change the expression while retaining the idea).
As to claim 7, De Ridder discloses the step of selecting the LLM from a group comprising a transformer-based language model ([0003], GPT-3).
As to claim 8, De Ridder discloses the step of identifying the second website on its ranking in a predefined search engine result for a target keyword (fig. 1, [0022], [0039], top sites ranked by a key phrase search).
As to claim 9, De Ridder discloses the step of storing the plurality of questions and the corresponding classification in a structured database (De Ridder, [0046], topical classification database, Nijjer, fig. 5, questions).
As to claim 10, De Ridder discloses the step of identifying the second website by examining search engine results for a given keyword (fig. 1, intent key phrase input).
As to claim 11, De Ridder discloses the step of highlighting the difference in content between the first and second websites in a user interface dashboard ([0049], highlights differences).
As to claim 13, De Ridder discloses the generation module is further configured to avoid duplication of content from the second website ([0067], rewrites to change the expression while retaining the idea from the second website to the first).
As to claim 14, De Ridder-Nijjer discloses the analysis module ranks the importance of unanswered or partially answered questions based on relevance or frequency (De Ridder, [0049]-[0052], [0067], relevancy of missing or partially covered content, Nijjer, fig. 5).
As to claim 15, De Ridder discloses the integration module presents suggested updates to a human author for approval prior to publication ([0067]).
As to claim 16, De Ridder-Nijjer discloses the generation module synthesizes additional answers to questions using training data aligned with a target domain of the first website (De Ridder, [0067], Nijjer, fig. 5).
As to claim 18, De Ridder discloses the instructions further cause the processor to flag unwanted content on the first website for replacement ([0049], highlights the sub-portion(s) that are deemed most problematic so that appropriate corrections can be made).
As to claim 19, De Ridder discloses the instructions include capturing excerpts from the first and second websites and comparing them using the LLM (fig. 1, [0025], fig. 5a, model comparison by AI).
As to claim 20, De Ridder discloses the enhanced content is generated by combining a user-defined prompt ([0004], modified template or the generative-AI input is then applied through the generative-AI to generate an output competitively-optimized with respect to the optimization targets) with the LLM's answer to the identified question ([0067]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is included in form PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEU T HOANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1253. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 AM -5 PM.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/HIEU T HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights