DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 3/30/26, wherein:
Claims 1-14 are currently pending; and
Claim 15 is cancelled.
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 .
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claim 8 recites a machine and therefore, also falls into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The underlined limitations of
providing a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to receive a suspected lie in digital media from a human agent;
transmitting the suspected lie to a system server that hosts an enforced moderated dialog concerning the suspected lie;
recording, by the system server, participant responses generated during the enforced moderated dialog as verdict data associated with the suspected lie; and
distributing, by the system server, a verdict log comprising the recorded participant responses associated with the suspected lie;
where the enforced moderated dialog comprises presenting structured questions to dialog participants and receiving their responses through the graphical user interface
are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The Specification states that the invention is directed to managing the discovery and interpretation of information, which is a mental process. Specification ¶2. That is, other than reciting:
Claim 1: graphical user interface (GUI) and a system server
Claim 8: graphical user interface (GUI), a system server, and processing circuitry,
nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps identified as abstract from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of
Claim 1: graphical user interface (GUI) and a system server
Claim 8: graphical user interface (GUI), a system server, and processing circuitry.
The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Additionally, the transmitting, receiving, and distributing limitations may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation reciting a system server that hosts an enforced moderated dialog concerning the suspected lie provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the computers are invoked merely as a tool to perform existing processes (hosting a dialog). Examiner further notes that this claim limitation is not positively recited. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the transmitting, distributing, and receiving limitations) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 1 or 8 without including a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2 and 9 provide further descriptive limitations of elements describing the suspected lie as lies, misinformation, and disinformation, which may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, but do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 3 and 10 further limit the abstract idea by introducing the limitation of at least one step comprising a parallel manual and automated method, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4 and 11 further limit the abstract idea by introducing the limitation of using a sequence of manual events to train the automation, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5 and 12 further limit the abstract idea by introducing the limitation of structuring dialogue to perform at least one of the steps, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6 and 13 further limit the abstract idea by introducing the limitation of structuring the dialog manually, automated, or a combination thereof, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7 and 14 further limit the abstract idea by introducing the limitation of assuring anonymity of humans participating in the steps, which does not include a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 1-14 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner has reviewed applicant’s disclosure and submits that these added limitations find no support in the specification as currently written, and is, therefore, directed to new matter.
Claim 1: “where the enforced moderated dialog comprises presenting structured questions to dialog participants and receiving their responses through the graphical user interface” is not described in the specification as written. Applicant did not cite any specific portion of the specification for support. However, Examiner reviewed the entirety of the specification, and did not find the cited limitation, particularly the underlined portions. Claim 8 includes a similar limitation.
The claims not specifically enumerated above are rejected as dependent upon one or more of the enumerated claims.
Notice
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.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myslinski (US 20130158984), in view of Gordon et al. (US 20010053967).
Referring to claim 1:
Myslinski discloses a method for controlling pernicious lies in digital media, the method comprising: providing a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to receive a suspected lie in digital media from a human agent {Myslinski [0101]-[0104][0309]-[0312]; In some embodiments, a user's mobile device (e.g., smart phone or tablet) is able to be placed on a print material, scans the print material with a camera on one side and displays the print material on the mobile device screen on the opposite side along with any fact checking and/or supplemental information generated by analysis of the print material [0310] and The information to be monitored is any information including, but not limited to, television audio, video or text, other text, radio, television broadcasts/shows, radio broadcasts, word processing data and/or documents, email, Twitter (tweets), message boards, web pages including, but not limited to, Facebook.RTM. postings and web logs, any computing device communication, telephone calls, face-to-face conversations, VoIP calls (e.g. Skype.TM.), video conferencing, live speech and any other information [0101]};
transmitting the suspected lie to a system server that hosts an enforced moderated dialog concerning the suspected lie {Myslinski [0078]; processing also includes capturing and/or transmitting the data [0078] and the data verification or fact checking occurs on a remote server including, but not limited to, a central server [0155]}.
Myslinski discloses a system for verifying the correctness of information and providing fact checking results (abstract). Myslinski does not disclose recording, by the system server, participant responses generated during the enforced moderated dialog as verdict data associated with the suspected lie; and distributing, by the system server, a verdict log comprising the recorded participant responses associated with the suspected lie; where the enforced moderated dialog comprises presenting structured questions to dialog participants and receiving their responses through the graphical user interface.
Gordon discloses a similar system for a virtual jury trial (abstract). Gordon discloses recording, by the system server, participant responses generated during the enforced moderated dialog as verdict data associated with the suspected lie {Gordon [0029][0079][0086][0113][0119]; The contents of the Electronic One-way Mirror are captured in a storage file, real time [0119]}; and
distributing, by the system server, a verdict log comprising the recorded participant responses associated with the suspected lie {Gordon [0079] [0119]; the entire virtual mock jury is recorded in real time. This allows for a detail analysis to be quickly provided to the client [0079]};
where the enforced moderated dialog comprises presenting structured questions to dialog participants and receiving their responses through the graphical user interface {Gordon [0110] and Fig. 5; When a jury scientist enables command 585 in FIG. 5and "directs votes" the question presented to the jurors is displayed in the jurors' "question display box" at 620. This question is typically called a "vote" since the options available to the jurors at 635 are "vote'yes'" or "vote'no'". If the options available to the jurors were "strongly agree," "agree," "neutral," "disagree," and "strongly disagree" then the question would typically be called a "poll." Depending on the visual interface supported by that particular virtual mock trial, other response options such as a text-answer-box and a numeric-answer-box, or a slider might be used in the poling [0110]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Myslinski to incorporate recording responses and distributing a verdict log as taught by Gordon because this would provide a manner for determining jurors’ attitudes (Gordon [0111]), thus aiding the user by providing a verdict.
Referring to claim 2:
Myslinski, as modified by Gordon, discloses wherein the suspected lie comprises one or more of the group comprising: lies, misinformation, and disinformation in digital media {Myslinski [0083][0129][0200]; Examples of information or statistics presented when an entity appears include, but are not limited to the number of lies, misstatements, truthful statements, hypocritical statements or actions, questionable statements, spin, or any other characterizations [0129] and the fact that any re-broadcasts would catch any misinformation could potentially discourage misinformation from being presented in the initial broadcast [0200]}.
Referring to claim 3:
Myslinski, as modified by Gordon, discloses wherein at least one of the steps comprises a parallel manual and automated method which enables improving automation while sustaining auditability {Myslinski [0082][0111] [0135][0138][0158][0200]; the facts are first checked manually or automatically which is able to occur in real-time or non-real-time [0082] and the fact checking system has the ability to learn [0135] and further, the limitation does not require steps to be performed or limit the claim to a particular structure, does not limit claim scope, and therefore, receives little patentable weight}.
Referring to claim 4:
Myslinski, as modified by Gordon, discloses wherein the parallel manual and automated method further enables using a sequence of manual events to train the automation {Myslinski [0133]-[0135][0138]; Learning is also able to include analyzing archived data of sources to determine the reliability of the sources. In some embodiments, if a characterization or other item has not been learned, an expandable list of options is presented to a user for the user to select an option [0135]}.
Referring to claim 5:
Myslinski, as modified by Gordon, discloses structuring dialogue to perform at least one of the steps {Myslinski [0090][0206]; an additional question is automatically presented (e.g. on a teleprompter or in his earpiece), so that the host does not have to formulate the additional question [0090]}.
Referring to claim 6:
Myslinski, as modified by Gordon, discloses wherein structuring the dialogue is performed manually, automated, or a combination of manually and automated {Myslinski [0090][0206]; the fact checker indicates a status of a comment to the host/interviewer of a show (e.g. so that the host is able to ask a follow-up question). In some embodiments, the fact checker comes up with the follow-up question automatically (e.g. follow up question is displayed on teleprompter) [0206]}.
Referring to claim 8:
Claim 8 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1, with the following additions:
Myslinski discloses a computation node for controlling pernicious lies in digital media, the computation node comprising: processing circuitry {Myslinski [0119]; a hardware structure suitable for implementing the computing device 400 includes a network interface 402, a memory 404, a processor 406, I/O device(s) 408, a bus 410 and a storage device 412 [0119]}.
Referring to claims 9-13:
Claims 9-13 are rejected on a similar basis to claims 2-6.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myslinski (US 20130158984), in view of Gordon et al. (US 20010053967), and further in view of Galuten (US 20180239832).
Referring to claim 7:
Myslinski, as modified by Gordon, discloses a system for verifying the correctness of information and providing fact checking results (abstract). Myslinski, as modified by Gordon, does not disclose assuring anonymity of humans participating in any of the steps.
However, Galuten discloses a similar system for determining news veracity (abstract). Galuten discloses assuring anonymity of humans participating in any of the steps {Galuten [0063]; An ARDSP is an entity that manages the reviewer data, makes it available in anonymous fashion [0063]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Myslinski and Gordon to incorporate anonymity as taught by Galuten because this would provide a manner for ensuring a user’s privacy and confidentiality (Galuten [0063]), thus aiding the user by allowing them to share their opinion without fear of reprisal.
Referring to claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Status of the Claims
Examiner has no comment on the status of the claims.
Rejection under 35 USC 112
Examiner has withdrawn the previous rejection and issued a new rejection under 35 USC 112. Applicant’s arguments are moot as directed to the previous rejection.
Rejection under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to mental acts, but “concrete operations of a computing system that manages interaction, sequencing, storage, and publication of data in a networked environment.” Examiner respectfully disagrees, for all the reasons above. The rejection, supra, explains in detail what parts of the limitations are abstract mental processes and which are additional limitations.
Applicant argues that the claims are now recite “a specific technological solution to a problem arising in digital media systems, namely how to support auditable, rule-based dialog and outcome recording at scale.” Remarks 6. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This is unsupported attorney argument, as the Specification does not provide any support for this problem. Further, the claims do not provide a technological solution directed to supporting auditable, rule-based dialog and outcome recording at scale.
35 USC 112(f)
Applicant indicates that the claims have been amended to eliminate the term “electronic system.” Examiner has removed the Claim Interpretation in response.
Rejection under 35 USC 103
Applicant argues the prior art does not include the amended claim limitations. Examiner has updated the rejection to include new art which addresses these claim limitations (see above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights