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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 23, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 remain cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 3-7 are drawn to methods while claim(s) 8, 10-15 and 17-20 is/are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 8 and 15) recites the following steps:
A method for pre-processing information, comprising:
retrieving information based on predetermined keywords defined by a user;
obtaining a blacklist of user accounts, the blacklist including first user account information and a blacklist reason for adding the first user account information to the blacklist;
pre-processing the retrieved information, based on the blacklist;
determining a sentiment value associated with the pre-processed information and assigning the pre-processed information to a sentiment category based on the sentiment value; and
receiving user input information to generate a ticket for the pre-processed information,
wherein first retrieved information associated with the first user account information included in the blacklist are distinguishably displayed from second retrieved information associated with second user account information not included in the blacklist, the first user account information and the second user account information being of different users, and both the first retrieved information and the second retrieved information being displayed but distinguishably so as to differentiate on the same screen information associated with blacklisted user accounts from information associated with non-blacklisted user accounts, and
wherein the pre-processing comprises: determining, from the retrieved information and based on the blacklist, the first retrieved information associated with the first user account information included in the blacklist; and
filtering out the determined first retrieved information so as to be excluded from the determining the sentiment value, based on the first retrieved information being determined to be associated with a blacklisted user account.
Alternatively, these steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) creating a blacklist (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 8 and 15 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
at least one processor (Claim 1, 8 and 15)
a social platform (Claim 1, 8 and 15)
a system user (Claim 1, 8 and 15)
displaying a first graphical user interface (GUI) (Claim 1, 8 and 15)
a same screen of the first GUI (Claim 1, 8 and 15)
An apparatus for pre-processing information: at least one memory configured to store program code; at least one processor configured to read the program code and operate as instructed by the program code (Claim 8)
wherein the at least one processor is configured to read the program code and operate as instructed by the program code to pre-process the retrieved information by (Claim 8)
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of an apparatus for pre-processing information storing instructions, cause the at least one processor (Claim 15)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea nor do they represent an improvement to the technology, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “displaying a first graphical user interface (GUI) (Claim 1, 8 and 15); a same screen of the first GUI (Claim 1, 8 and 15)” serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “displaying a first graphical user interface (GUI) (Claim 1, 8 and 15); a same screen of the first GUI (Claim 1, 8 and 15)” serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more5' (see MPEP 2106.05(g, h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims (2A/ 2B):
Dependent claims 4, 7, 11, and 20 fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 17- 19 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
second GUI
the social platform
a system user
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. The additional elements also serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos (11,095,588) in view of Pitirimov (2017/0206249).
Claims 1, 8 and 15
Santos discloses a method for pre-processing information, performed by at least one processor and comprising:
obtaining a blacklist of user accounts, the blacklist including first user account information and a blacklist reason for adding the user account information to the blacklist (Santos [Column 2 Lines 24-27]); See “A social network data processing and monitoring system that accesses messages posted to a plurality of social networks and identifies one or more of bad content and bad actors or potential bad actors is disclosed.” See also [Column 13 Lines 51-67] and Figure 11 where the “worst part” is the reason for adding the user to the blacklist.
pre-processing the retrieved information, based on the blacklist (Santos [Column 7 Lines 58-63]); Where the content categorizer performs the preprocessing. See [0093] where the instant specification teaches that the pre-processed information is information filtered [categorized] based on the blacklist.
determining a sentiment value associated with the pre-processed information and assigning the pre-processed information to a sentiment category based on the sentiment value (Santos [Column 3 Lines 6-44]); See at least “The messages are scored based on one or more of the message content and message sentiment in addition to an action associated with the message if the message is a secondary message. In an example, the messages are given whole number scores so that those messages which need not be analyzed or profiled are given a score of zero whereas the messages likely to include bad content are given non-zero whole number scores. In an example, the messages can also be scored based on a position or status of the messages in the corresponding message chains with the primary messages receiving higher scores than the secondary messages. The messages which receive non-zero scores and users posting the messages that receive non-zero scores are monitored. In an example, the users receive risk profile scores wherein the non-zero scores of the messages posted by the users are aggregated into the corresponding user profiles.”
and displaying a first graphical user interface (GUI) for receiving user input information to generate a ticket for the pre-processed information (Santos [Column 6 Lines 51-67][Column 7 Lines 1-6][Figure 12]); See “the alert generator 108 can be coupled to GUIs 112 which include various dashboards. The dashboards can provide data about the messages 172 at various granularity levels ranging from individual users to global trends in the messages.”
wherein the pre-processing comprises: determining, from the retrieved information and based on the blacklist, the first retrieved information associated with the first user account information included in the blacklist; (Santos [Figure 10]); Where the display shows all of the blacklisted content from the user “Tyler Lynch”. See also Figure 11 which shows the blacklisted content from the user at 1106 “Let’s **** the USA.”
filtering out the determined first retrieved information so as to be excluded from the determining the sentiment value, based on the first retrieved information being determined to be associated with a blacklisted user account. (Santos [Column 3 Lines ]). See at least “the monitoring system can be also be configured to provide a score of zero to a message expressing negative sentiments towards an issue represented by the category corresponding to the message.”
Santos does not explicitly disclose keyword tagging by a system user. Pitirimov teaches:
retrieving information from a social platform based on predetermined keywords defined by a system user (Pitirimov [0033]). See at least “the administrator may select hashtags, specify forbidden words, specify blacklisted and whitelisted users, specify wall design and service information, and select moderation mode ( e.g., manual or none).”
wherein first retrieved information associated with the first user account information included in the blacklist are distinguishably displayed from second retrieved information associated with second user account information not included in the blacklist, the first user account information and the second user account information being of different users, and both the first retrieved information and the second retrieved information being displayed on a same screen of the first GUI but distinguishably so as to differentiate on the same screen information associated with blacklisted user accounts from information associated with non-blacklisted user accounts (Pitirimov [0038]). See at least “ Selected users can be added to blacklist (416) and their messages will be ignored automatically. Selected users can be added to whitelist ( 417) and their messages will be shown on the wall bypassing manual moderation process.”
PNG
media_image1.png
792
1138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Note: While Figure 4a shows only one account (@AccountName as shown) the description states that the blacklist and whitelist columns, which are displayed distinguishably as they are clearly marked and separated, are for user accounts (plural) to be listed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of pre-processing information, as taught by Santos, the method of keyword tagging by a system user and clearly identifying blacklisted and whitelisted users, as taught by Pitirimov, to have better accuracy in user detection (Santos [Column 13 Lines 51-63]).
Claims 3, 10 and 17
Modified Santos and Pitirimov disclose the above features. Modified Pitirimov further teaches:
displaying a second GUI for adding a user account to the blacklist, the second GUI including a first input field for user account information and a second input field for blacklist reason (Pitirimov [Figure 4(a), 416, 417][0038]). See also Figure 4a, 412 where the input field for Forbidden Words displays the reason.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of pre-processing information, as taught by modified Santos, the method of manually adding of information by a system user, as taught by modified Pitirimov, to have better accuracy in content detection (Santos [Column 13 Lines 51-63]).
Claims 4 and 11
Modified Santos and Pitirimov disclose the above features. Modified Santos further teaches:
wherein the first input field is auto-filled (Santos [Column 14 Lines 11-21]). Where the reference teaches “FIG. 12 shows a sample dataset 1200 generated by the monitoring system 100 [auto-filled] in accordance with the examples disclosed herein. The dataset 1200 includes various columns including the user ids 1202…”
Claims 5, 12 and 19
Modified Santos and Pitirimov disclose the above features. Modified Santos further teaches:
generating a watchlist; determining if a user account is to be included in the watchlist based on a suspect level determined according to an analysis of information posted by the user account to the social platform (Santos [Column 3 Lines 20-24 ]); See “When a risk profile score of a user increases beyond a profile score threshold, the user profile can be flagged for further review/ action for example, via adding the user to a gray list [watchlist].
moving the user account from the watchlist to the blacklist based on a user input to move the user account. (Santos [Figure 11, 1114]). See also [Column 13 Lines 59-62]). See “The action buttons 1112 enable an administrative user to blacklist 1114 the users or to approve 1116 the users if the risk profile score.”
Claims 6, 13 and 18
Modified Santos and Pitirimov disclose the above features. Modified Santos further teaches:
receiving a user input, via the second GUI, to delete a user account from the blacklist (Santos [Column 13 Lines 59-62]). See “The action buttons 1112 enable an administrative user to blacklist 1114 the users or to approve 1116 the users if the risk profile score.” Examiner notes that the references teaches manual editing of the graylist. It would be obvious to modify the reference to teach the editing of the blacklist it is a known technique in content management using a GUI and would yield the predictable result of controlling who remains on the blacklist.
Claims 7, 14 and 20
Modified Santos and Pitirimov disclose the above features. Modified Santos further teaches:
generating a trash list and adding information determined to be non-informative to the trash list based on a rule set by the system user, wherein the information is added to the trash list based on information previously added to the trash list (Santos [Column 8 Lines 49-59]). See “The content analyzer 104 further includes a message scorer 208 to score messages based on rules. The rules can specify combinations of different factors and weights to be assigned to the factors for scoring. The factors can include but are not limited to, the position of the message within a message chain, the category into which the message is classified, the sentiment expressed in the message and an action associated with the message. In an example, the messages can be given a non-zero score or a positive score if the messages are to be further processed and a zero score if the messages can be discarded [trash] without further processing.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Applicant notes that in the previously-filed Amendment, the independent claims were amended to specify a distinguishable display of the blacklisted user's information. It was also argued that the claims include limitations that provide a practical application of the alleged abstract idea, namely, an improved user interface. To this end, the distinguishable display enables a system user to easily identify and filter out the blacklisted user's information (e.g., social media post) so as to preserve network resources that would otherwise be used for computing a sentiment or generating a ticket.
The Examiner notes that this claim of an improved interface is not representative of an "actual" improvement to the technology itself, but at best is an improvement to the business method or abstract idea itself. In fact, Applicant can provide no tangible findings that there was actually anything different and/or improved in the instant system compared to prior "conventional systems", other than a mere allegation and unsubstantiated, conclusory statement that the instant invention improves existing systems. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that the features of the claimed invention do not represent an improvement, it is merely displaying information. The Applicant cannot point to anything that was specifically done either in the claimed subject matter, the specification, or provided reasoning to show how this is significantly more or provides an improvement to the technology of the conventional system implementation. Moreover, the Examiner respectfully notes that the needed "improvement" in terms of patent eligibility is not one resulting from programming a generic processor to perform a different (or even improved) function, but rather a specific and actual improvement to the machine itself is needed. Based on these findings of fact, the Examiner contends the claims are indeed directed towards an abstract idea and Applicant's arguments to the contrary are considered to be non-persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Similar to Example 37 of the USPTO's examples for determining patent eligible subject matter utilizing the blacklist to perform the pre-processing and to distinguishably display associated information, an "improved user interface for electronic devices" (Example 37) results and therefore is a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 37 is directed to a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. A similar integration into a practical application is not evident in the instant case. The instant application merely displays blacklisted and whitelisted users but this is not an improvement to the interface, only the information displayed on the interface. The claim in not eligible.
Applicant Argues: The instant claims to recite pre-processing features that amount to a technical improvement, namely the "filtering out the selected information so as to be excluded from the determining the sentiment value."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Filtering out information before a determination calculation or value is made does not represent a technical improvement; improvement to computer functionality; or to a technical field. The claims remain ineligible.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Applicant respectively submits that the cited art does not suggest the blacklisted user's retrieved information is displayed distinguishably from the non-blacklisted user's retrieved information on a same screen of a GUI from which a user input to generate a ticket is received, in combination with other elements of the claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claim do clarify the intent of the claim, however newly cited Figure 4a discloses the limitation. See above and repeated here for reference, “While Figure 4a shows only one account (@AccountName as shown) the description states that the blacklist and whitelist columns, which are displayed distinguishably as they are clearly marked and separated, are for user accounts (plural) to be listed.”
Applicant Argues: Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references do not suggest "filtering out the selected information so as to be excluded from the determining the sentiment value," in combination with other elements of the claim.
Examiner agrees and has cited Santos for the teaching.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm.
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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626