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 .
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all pending claims have fully considered, they are moot because of the ground of rejection. Applicant argues that cited references failed to disclose wherein the automatically compiling includes categorizing the plurality of user selections
of bias and truthfulness by demographic information including political affiliation.
However, Solomon et al disclose a system being able to use political affiliation as “Democrat” and “Republican” and “Liberal” and “Conservative” to categorize users including geographic or demographic information and users have the options to assign ratings to contents as shown in fig.7a to fig.7b and disclosed in para. 0039;0050;0073; 0004;0056-0058. This action is made final.
Claims Rejections-35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 1-3; 5-13; 15-16; 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gable (US.Pat.No.9285973) in view of Ott et al (US.Pub.No.20070179835) and Solomon (US.Pub.20160283470) and Waldron (US.Pub.No.20160269781).
Regarding claim 1, Gable et al disclose a method for rating content, comprising: automatically determining content being received by an electronic device associated with a user(users are able to receive video contents from providers;col.4, lines 44-45; col.4, lines 11-13);
the electronic device executing an application(user of the device may interact with the server via a running application; col.4, lines 6-9);
communicating a user interface of the application utilizing the electronic device for receiving at least a-user selections of 1) an up vote or down vote of the content, 2)bias of the content on a scale (a user can use a user interface to provide bias rating to video content based on some specific conditions and users have the options to assign vote to video contents; abstract; col.14, lines 51-53; col.4, lines 10-13; col.4, lines 44-48; col.17, lines 16-21; col.5, lines 60-67; col.6, lines 1-4;col.13, lines 44-47; col.12, lines 32-50+; col.10, lines 15-18+; the scale may be a linear scale; the scale may have a minimum value and a maximum value (e.g., 0 to 10, 0 to 100), col.7, lines 54-60+ );
wherein the user interface is communicated in response to a request from the user to provide the user selections (see fig.11 where a user interface is presented to the user upon selection of a plug-in; col.17, lines 16-21);
receiving the user selections of at least 1)the up vote or down vote of the content , 2) the bias of the content from the user through the user interface communicated by the electronic device for association with an identifier of the content ( users are able to input data via user interface and they can like or dislike video contents and bias rating can assign to video contents; col.12, lines 32-50+; col.6, lines 1-3; col.9, lines 26-40+; col.15, lines 55-59; col.13, lines 44-47; col.10, lines 15-18+).
But did not explicitly disclose communicating a user interface utilizing the electronic device for receiving at least a-user selections of rating truthfulness of the content based on subjective assessment by to-the user on a scale ; and wherein truthfulness is rated independently from the bias of the content; receiving the user selections of at least the truthfulness of the content through the user interface of the application communicated by the electronic device for association with an identifier of the content ; automatically compiling, utilizing a remote server, a plurality of user selections of 1)up vote or down votes of the content; 2) bias of the content and 3)truthfulness associated with the content for a plurality of users including the user selections of at least up vote or down vote bias of the content and truthfulness of to be displayed by the user interface the user; and communicating results to the user from the remote server through one or more networks and the user interface of the application at least graphically indicating both 1) the user selections from the user of up or down votes, bias of the content, and truthfulness associated with the content, and 2) the plurality of user selections of up votes or down votes, bias of the content, and truthfulness associated with the content; wherein the automatically compiling includes categorizing the plurality of user selections
of bias and truthfulness by demographic information including political affiliation.
However, Ott et al disclose communicating a user interface utilizing the electronic device for receiving at least a-user selections of rating truthfulness(the system is able to provide accurate rating or unbiased rating; 0096) of the content based on subjective assessment(the system allows users to assign rating based on personal opinion or subjective assessment; 0032) by to-the user on a scale (the system can apply scale in assigning rating to video content; 0054); and wherein truthfulness is rated independently from the bias of the content(unbiased rating or truthful rating is provided independently;0096); receiving the user selections of at least the truthfulness of the content through the user interface(user can assign rating to video content via a user interface; 0058;0103) of the application communicated by the electronic device for association with an identifier of the content(the system is able to collect specific data associated with video content; 0045;0056;0074;0112).
It would have been obvious before effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ott et al to modify Gable by using truthfulness data for the purpose of measuring the level of accuracy of rating associated with the received data or contents
And the combination of Gable and Ott disclose a system providing options to users to input data via user interface rating bias and rating truthfulness to media contents, but they are silent in how to disclose: automatically compiling, utilizing a remote server, a plurality of user selections of 1)up vote or down votes of the content; 2) bias of the content and 3)truthfulness associated with the content for a plurality of users including the user selections of at least up vote or down vote bias of the content and truthfulness of to be displayed by the user interface the user; and communicating results to the user from the remote server through one or more networks and the user interface of the application at least graphically indicating both 1) the user selections from the user of up or down votes, bias of the content, and truthfulness associated with the content, and 2) the plurality of user selections of up votes or down votes, bias of the content, and truthfulness associated with the content; wherein the automatically compiling includes categorizing the plurality of user selections of bias and truthfulness by demographic information including political affiliation.
And Solomon et al disclose automatically compiling, utilizing a remote server, a plurality of user selections(the system is able collect historical viewing data associated with users;0066; 0063-0064) of 1)up vote or down votes of the content(see fig.7a to fig.7b for allowing users to vote for contents; 0056-0058); 2) bias of the content(see fig.7a to fig.7b) and 3)truthfulness associated with the content(the system is able to identify truth related to media sources; 0003) for a plurality of users including the user selections of at least up vote or down vote bias of the content and truthfulness of to be displayed by the user interface the user(see fig.7a to fig.7b for presenting user interface for allowing users to vote for contents by assigning bias rating or truthful rating based on preferences; 0056-0058) ; and communicating results to the user from the remote server through one or more networks(the system is able to present results associated with vote to users; 0058;0068-0069); wherein the automatically compiling includes categorizing the plurality of user selections of bias and truthfulness by demographic information(geographic region, 0004;0073) including political affiliation(the system is able to use political affiliation as “Democrat” and “Republican” and “Liberal” and “Conservative” to categorize users; 0039;0050;0073).
It would have been obvious before effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Solomon to modify Gable and Ott by applying data collection and displaying results technique of Solomon to the system of Gable and Ott resulting in “automatically compiling, utilizing a remote server, a plurality of user selections of 1)up vote or down votes of the content; 2) bias of the content and 3)truthfulness associated with the content for a plurality of users including the user selections of at least up vote or down vote bias of the content and truthfulness of to be displayed by the user interface the user; and communicating results to the user from the remote server through one or more networks; wherein the automatically compiling includes categorizing the plurality of user selections of bias and truthfulness by demographic information including political affiliation” for the purpose of tracking or monitoring viewing history of users across the network accordingly.
And Waldron et al disclose a system allowing users to assign positive and negative feedback to media contents and the system show in fig.20 a user interface that provides options to assign up/down votes or thumb up/down votes to media content and users can like or dislike media content based on some specific criteria as disclosed in para.0107-0109; 0112-0113.
It would have been obvious before effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Waldron to modify Gable and Ott and Solomon by applying technique of displaying thumb down vote and thumb up vote via user interface of Waldron to Gable and Solomon resulting in the user interface at least graphically indicating both 1) the user selections from the user of up or down votes, bias of the content, and truthfulness associated with the content, and 2) the plurality of user selections of up votes or down votes, bias of the content, and truthfulness associated with the content for the purpose of improving viewing experience in social network accordingly.
Regarding claim 2, Gable et al disclose wherein the determining content includes receiving request from the user of an indicator for communicating the user interface and wherein the user selections for bias and the truthfulness is selectable from a plurality of level on sliding scale (it may be desired to have five bias rating categories for a user to select from, col.5, lines 7-10+; col.6, lines 1-3; col.9, lines 7-20; col.5, lines 60-65+).
Regarding claim 3, Gable and Solomon and Waldron et al did not explicitly disclose further comprising: performing semantic, keyword, and metadata analysis of the content to indicate potential biases to the user through the user.
However, Ott et al disclose further comprising: performing semantic, keyword, and metadata analysis of the content to indicate potential biases to the user through the user( the system allows users to execute search via user interface;0047-0048;0050;0055-0057;0053 ).
It would have been obvious before effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ott to modify Gable and Solomon and Waldron by using truthfulness data for the purpose of measuring the level of accuracy of rating associated with the received data accordingly
Regarding claim 5, Gable and Solomon and Ott et al did not explicitly disclose further comprising: receiving login information from the user prior to receiving the selection of content.
However, Waldron et al disclose further comprising: receiving login information from the user prior to receiving the selection of content ( the system provides options to users to enter credentials data; 0084; 0100-0102).
It would have been obvious before effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Waldron to modify Gable and Solomon and Ott by providing user interface with login option for the purpose of limiting access to contents accordingly.
Regarding claim 6, Gable et al disclose wherein the application is a browser(a browser may be displayed on the user's device,col.4, lines 6-14) and wherein the user selection is changeable by the user at any time (the bias-score may update in real-time as the user modifies one or more attribute value and/or weighting. In other embodiments, the bias-score may update when a user selects an option to update or at periodic times or in response to predetermined events, col.9, lines 60-64+).
Regarding claim 7, Gable et al disclose wherein the user interface is communicated through a browser extension or add-in, and wherein the user selection is stored in a database associated with a server as received through the browser extension or add-in (a user may be interacting with the server via an application or website. For example, a browser may be displayed on the user's device, col.4, lines 7-14; server(s) may receive ratings, such as bias ratings from one or more participants or sources and may optionally store such information. The information may be stored in memory (e.g., databases or other memory storage units), col.3, lines 51-60+).
Regarding claim 8, Gable et al disclose further comprising: sharing the user selection associated with the user through a social media post or one or more messages(shares` may be used to determine the participant's bias and/or bias of content that the participants is rating or reviewing,col.12, lines 33-40+; a sidebar may also provide an option for the participant to share the content via social media 1040 (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Google+, LinkedIn, or any other social media site), col.17, col.1-5+).
Regarding claim 9, Gable and Solomon and Waldron et al did not explicitly disclose wherein the user selection received from the user further comprises a text comment from the user.
However, Ott et al disclose wherein the user selection received from the user further comprises a text comment from the user(the system allow users to provide feedback related to video content; 0121).
It would have been obvious before effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ott to modify Gable and Solomon and Waldron by using truthfulness data for the purpose of measuring the level of accuracy of rating associated with the received data.
Regarding claim 10, Gable et al disclose wherein the user interface is configurable to receive different types of bias (displays of bias ratings of various types, col.2, lines 46-47).
Regarding claim 11, Gable et al disclose wherein the user selections are received for web content or mobile application content(the source may be an individual (e.g., author), entity (e.g., company owning a news source), a media provider (e.g., the news source, such as the New York Times), a section of a media provide (e.g., Arts & Leisure section of the New York Times), newscast, channel, TV network, website, blog, or any other type of source,col.12, lines 58-63;col.4, lines 1-5+).
But did not explicitly disclose wherein a unique identifier is associated with the content regardless of distribution by multiple sources.
However, Ott et al disclose wherein a unique identifier is associated with the content regardless of distribution by multiple sources (the system is able to collect specific data associated with video content; 0045;0056;0074;0112; 0124-0125).
It would have been obvious before effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ott to modify Gable and Solomon and Waldron by assigning identifier to specific content for the purpose of monitoring viewing history accordingly.
Regarding claim 12, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, Gable et al disclose wherein the content rating platform is a server, and wherein the user interface is communicated by a browser extension or add-in in response to the request associated with the browser extension or add-in(see fig.1, element 120, server; a user may be interacting with the server via an application or website. For example, a browser may be displayed on the user's device, col.4, lines 7-14; server(s) may receive ratings, such as bias ratings from one or more participants or sources and may optionally store such information. The information may be stored in memory (e.g., databases or other memory storage units), col.3, lines 51-60+).
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Gable et al disclose wherein changes to the content by a party associated with the content are visually communicated in the user interface (bias information and the content may be displayed in a visually associated manner on the user's device video and/or audio display, col.4, lines 6-14; the incorporated bias rating can be continually evolving as participants continuously take bias tests, rate content and sources, and vote in favor or against different opinions, and more, col.13, lines 41-50).
Regarding claim 22, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 3.
Regarding claim 23, Gable et al disclose further comprising: performing phonetic analysis of the content utilizing machine learning to determine bias (With an active community and increasing amount of content over time, the bias rating of a source can be constantly evaluated and updated, delivering a dynamic bias rating rather than something set in stone. The systems and methods provided herein may be self-learning as additional information is collected and feedback is provided,col.11, lines 62-67; in some instances, the incorporated bias ratings may be self-learning and may become more accurate over time, col.13, lines 48-50).
Regarding claim 24, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 21.
Claims 4; 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gable (US.Pat.No.9285973) in view of Ott et al (US.Pub.No.20070179835) and Solomon (US.Pub.20160283470) and Waldron (US.Pub.No.20160269781) and Myslinski et al (US.Pub.No.20140164994).
Regarding claim 4, Gable et al disclose wherein the user interface includes a sliding scale for rating bias of the content as perceived by the user from 0 to 100 percent liberal bias or 0 to 100 percent conservative bias (The scale may be a linear scale. In alternate embodiments, the scale may be an exponential scale, logarithmic scale, or any other type of scale. The scale may have a numerical value. For example, the scale may have a minimum value and a maximum value (e.g., 0 to 10, 0 to 100). The user may also choose the relative importance of each attribute,col.7, lines 54-60+; may include categories such as staunch conservatives, main street republicans, libertarians, disaffected, post-moderns, new coalition democrats, hard-pressed democrats, solid liberals,col.6, lines 31-36+).
But did not explicitly disclose wherein 0 represents neutral content without bias, and wherein the user interface communicates a sliding scale for rating the truthfulness of the content as perceived by the user from 0% or false to 100% or completely true.
However, Myslinski et al disclose wherein 0 represents neutral content without bias, and wherein the user interface communicates a sliding scale for rating the truthfulness of the content as perceived by the user from 0% or false to 100% or completely true( Three of the articles are rated as 100s (scale of 1 to 100); 0183; 0294;0278).
It would have been obvious before effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Myslinski to modify Gable and Solomon and Waldron and Ott by using truthfulness data for the purpose of measuring the level of accuracy of rating associated with the received data.
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 4.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN D SAINT CYR whose telephone number is (571)270-3224. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 5712727527. 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.
/JEAN D SAINT CYR/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
/Brian T Pendleton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights