DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 51-57, 59-67 and 69-72 are pending in this application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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.
Response to Amendment
3. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 09/26/2025 in response to the no-final rejection mailed on 06/26/2025. Claims 51, 55, 61 and 65 have been amended. Claims 1-50, 58 and 68 have been cancelled. Claims 52-57, 59-60, 62-64, 66-67 and 69-72 have been previously presented. Amendment has been entered.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments, filed on 09/26/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 51-57, 59-67 and 69-72 under 35 U.S.C. §101 an abstract idea (mental process) (Applicant’s arguments, pages 7-8), have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Respectfully, the examiner disagrees, see the clarification below.
The Applicant’s representative argues that “The claims are directed to, e.g., a technical improvement for capturing social media comments and emoji-based reactions from users/connections and translates that captured data as metadata to enhance search and recommendation processing and accuracy, e.g., within social media platforms.” However, the capture of data is, in a broadly reasonable interpretation, nothing more than the gathering of data. Simply capturing data from social media comments and user reactions, and using that data to capture more data, does not, by itself, represent a technical improvement to any technology field. The claims as a whole do not show in detail how to capture data from social media comments and translate it into a search query and prove that it would provide any accuracy; neither does the specification. It seems that the Applicant’s representative provided an idea for a solution to a problem of searching for and providing accurate data on social media, but failed to provide details on what the problem is, how to resolve it, and the final results of the resolution. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(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.
The Applicant’s representative argues that “Moreover, the claims are not directed to a "mental process." Claim 51, for example, recites" ... a first number indicative of selections of an icon corresponding to an emoji via user interfaces of a plurality of user devices" and "retrieving a plurality of comments posted, via the user interfaces of the plurality of user devices." Such required selections and comments posted – each corresponding to the same emoji-cannot be considered a mental process. This is clearly a technical solution to a problem rooted in internet search technology.” However, simply having a number that symbolizes a selection of icons or emojis does not, by itself, represent a technical improvement in any technology field. A human can observe data that contains a collection of icons or emojis and mentally count them. A human can also mentally observe and judge comments posted on social media and mentally associate emojis with the observed comments. Retrieving information in a broadly reasonable interpretation, nothing more than the gathering of data. According to MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii), courts have determined that the simple act of gathering data constitutes a well-understood and conventional procedure. This includes activities such as using the internet to gather data by receiving or transmitting it over a network. Further details can be found by consulting MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii). The interface and computer device in the claims are being used to implement the abstract idea, see the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. Simply use conventional, generic computer components to carry out an abstract, unpatentable concept.
The Applicant’s representative argues that “Referring to Applicant's specification (e.g., ,-i,i [0002]-[0004]), searching for content may not be limited to text-based input.” However, the specification is vague and does not define in detail how content searching may not be limited to text-based input. The claims also do not reflect most of the elements described in paragraphs [0002]-[0005]. The Applicant's representative appears to have provided a potential solution for the problem of finding and supplying accurate social media data. However, they failed to explain the problem itself, how to resolve it, and what the final outcome of the resolution would be. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(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.
The Applicant’s representative argues that “Examiners are reminded not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind” and “Claim limitations that encompass AI in a way that cannot be practically performed in the human mind do not fall within this grouping.” (2025 August Memo, p. 2).” However, none of the claims is limited to being implemented by AI. Therefore, this argument is moot. It is also noted that the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (C)(III) - Mental processes.
For all the above reasons, the rejection of claims 51-57, 59-67, and 69-72 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to an abstract idea (mental process) is upheld.
Applicant's arguments, filed on 09/26/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 51-57, 59-67, and 69-72 under 35 U.S.C. §103 (Applicant’s arguments, pages 8-10), have been fully considered and are but are moot because the independent claims are amended and introduce new limitations that were not previously presented newly found prior art has been applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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 51-57, 59-67 and 69-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (Mental Process) without significantly more. The claims similarly recite steps to aggregated computer log records.
The following is an analysis based on 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category?
Claims 51-57 and 59-60 are directed to a method.
Claims 61-67 and 70-72 are directed to a system.
Therefore, claims 51-57, 59-67 and 69-72 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong I: Judicial Exception Recited?
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute a “Mental Process”, as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
As per claims 51 and 61, the claims similarly recite the limitations of:
“accessing reaction information about a content item, the reaction information comprising a first number indicative of selections of an icon corresponding to an emoji via user interfaces of a plurality of user devices;” A human can read an information regarding a content item. Upon read the information a human can have a reaction regarding the information. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind.
The first number, indicative of selections, icons, emojis, and user interfaces are merely a components used to implement the mental steps recited in claims 51 and 61.
“determining, based on the plurality of comments, a second number indicative of one or more a number of comments in the plurality of comments that correspond to the emoji;” A human can read information regarding a content item and, based on observations and judgments, mentally determine comments indicative of the read content item. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind.
The second number indicative of one or more a number of comments, and emojis are merely a components used to implement the mental steps recited in claims 51 and 61.
“wherein the factor is generated based at least in part on the first number of selections of the icon corresponding to the emoji and the determined second number indicative of the one or more number of comments in the plurality of comments that correspond to the emoji;” A human can calculate a variable that indicates the degree of relevance between content items, performing this task through simple observations and judgments of two or more elements associated with the observed content of the content items. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind.
As per dependent claims 53 and 63, the claims recite the limitation of:
“determining a genre of the content item; and associating the factor to the genre.” A human can observe content and mentally make judgments to determine the kind of content. A human can mentally link and relate contents to one another based on judgments of the contents. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind.
As per dependent claims 54 and 64, the claims recite the limitation of:
“further comprising associating the genre to a profile.” A human can mentally link and relate content to a predefined profile based on their judgments of the content. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind.
As per dependent claims 55 and 65, the claims recite the limitation of:
“wherein determining, based on the plurality of comments, the second number indicative of the one or more number of comments in the plurality of comments that correspond to the emoji comprises: executing sentiment analysis on one or more comments in the plurality of comments; and determining, based on the sentiment analysis, that the one or more comments corresponds to the emoji.” A human can add sentiment while analyzing content. The sentiments added to the analysis can be related to an emoji, for example, one shown in the content. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind.
As per dependent claims 56 and 66, the claims recite the limitation of:
“wherein the one or more comments correspond to a plurality of emojis based on the sentiment analysis, the method further comprising: determining weights associated with each of the plurality of emojis based on the sentiment analysis; and wherein the factor indicates the degree of relevance based on the weights.” A human can determine weights related to a human observed content. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind.
The one or more comments correspond to plurality of emojis based on the sentiment analysis and the factor indicates the degree of relevance based on the weights are merely a components used to implement the mental steps recited in claims 51 and 61.
As per dependent claims 57 and 67, the claims recite the limitation of:
“further comprising automatically mapping the one or more comments to the emoji based on a rule.” A human can observe content and mentally map it to an emoji based on specific criteria. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind.
As per dependent claims 59 and 69, the claims recite the limitation of:
“wherein generating the factor indicating the degree of relevance between the content item and the emoji comprises generating metadata based on the factor and the emoji.” A human can observe content and mentally create a description of the content based on criteria. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind.
As per dependent claims 60 and 70, the claims recite the limitation of:
“wherein generating the factor indicating the degree of relevance between the content item and the emoji comprises generating the factor based on a frequency of the selections of the icon.” A human can observe content and mentally create a description of the content based on criteria. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind.
As per dependent claims 71 and 72, the claims recite the limitation of:
“wherein the content item comprises a plurality of portions, the method further comprising: for each portion of the plurality of portions determining, based on the reaction information, a respective emoji associated with the portion; determining, based on the respective emoji, a genre associated with the portion; and generating a respective factor indicating a degree of relevance between the portion and the genre.” A human can observe content and mentally react to the information. A human can mentally create an emoji associated with the content they react to. A human can mentally observe and categorize content based on criteria. There is nothing so complex in the limitation that could not be doing in the human mind.
Accordingly, claims 51-57, 59-67 and 69-72 recite at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong II: Integrated into a Practical Application?
The claims recite the following additional limitations/elements:
As per claims 51 and 61, the claims recite the additional limitation of:
“retrieving a plurality of comments posted, via the user interfaces of the plurality of user devices, in association with the content item; and storing, in a database, the factor in association with an identifier of the content item.” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation exemplify mere data gathering, without any further processing or analysis.
As per claim 51, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“user interfaces and a plurality of user devices.” This element is example of mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the additional elements of the limitations invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field; and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
As per claim 61, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“a control circuitry, user interfaces and plurality of user devices.” This element is example of mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the additional elements of the limitations invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field; and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
As per dependent claims 52 and 62, the claims recite the limitation of:
“wherein the content item is posted via one or more social platforms.” This limitation is example of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the additional limitation element of posted a content item via a social platform exemplify mere data gathering and transmission, without any further processing or analysis.
The one or more social platforms are merely a components used to implement the mental steps recited in claims 51 and 61.
Therefore, claims 51-57, 59-67 and 69-72 do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
With respect to the limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above the conclusions are carried over, and both the “retrieve …; storing ….; and posted …; ” are well-understood, routine, and conventional operations.
For support as being well-understood, routine, and conventional for “retrieve …; storing ….; and posted …; ” as noted by the courts is well understood routine and conventional, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);” and/or MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”, and/or MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “iii. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);”
Looking at the limitations in combination and the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Therefore, the claims 51-57, 59-67 and 69-72 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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.
7. Claims 51-52 and 61-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ball et al. (US 20170139921 A1) in view of Ghadiyali (US 20170212664 A1).
As per claim 51, Ball teaches a method comprising (i.e. “The method”; Abstract):
accessing reaction information about a content item, the reaction information comprising (i.e. “FIG. 11 illustrates an example of user interactions with a newsfeed 1120. The newsfeed 1120 may be a list of content objects, such as posts and their associated comments.”; fig.11, para. [0121]. Further, i.e. “the target user 1102 (“Sarah”) may interact with the social-networking system 160, e.g., by “liking” a comment 1124 that is displayed on the newsfeed 1120.”; para. [0123]; Examiner note: The accessing is interpreted as the user interaction. The reaction information is interpreted as the “liking” a comment. The content item is interpreted as the newsfeed 1120 may be a list of content objects, such as posts),
a first number indicative of selections of an icon corresponding to an emoji (i.e. “the like count is a count of how many times an author's posts have been marked as liked”; para. [0088]. Further, i.e. “replies (e.g., “?”, “LOL”, “thanks”, “yes”, “no”, emoji,”; para. [0193]; Examiner note: The first number indicative of selections are interpreted as the a count of how many times an author’s posts. The icon is interpreted as the replies. The emoji is interpreted as the like)
via user interfaces of a plurality of user devices (i.e. “FIG. 13 illustrates an example of a user interface 302 that includes user interface elements via which a target user 360 may interact with one or more posts 304 and with one or more comments 1320. The user interface 302 may be presented by a web browser 132 or native application on a display of the client system 130.”; fig. 13, para. [0164]. Further, i.e. “on mobile computing devices of users”; para. [0054]. Examiner note: the user interface is interpreted as the user interface 302. The plurality of user devices are interpreted as the client system 130 and mobile computing devices of user);
retrieving a plurality of comment posted, via the user interface of the plurality of user devices, in association with the content item (i.e. “retrieve a plurality of comments associated with a content object. For example, the comments may have been submitted by users of the social-networking system 160 as responses to a post.”; fig. 6, para. [0073]; Examiner note: the comments posted, via the user interface of the plurality of user devices, in association with the content item is interpreted as the comments may have been submitted by users of the social-networking system 160 as responses to a post. The content item is interpreted as the content object);
storing, in a database, the factor in association with an identifier of the content item (i.e. “The interaction log 1118 and newsfeed 1120 may be stored in the data store 164, memory 1204, and/or storage 1206 of a server 162 of the social-networking system 160.”; para. [0125]; Examiner note: the database is interpreted as the data store 164. The content item is interpreted as the newsfeed. Further, i.e. “The interaction log entry may include a comment identifier identifying the comment,”; para. [0166]).
However, it is noted that the prior art of Ball does not explicitly teach “determining, based on the plurality of comments, a second number indicative of one or more a number of comments in the plurality of comments that correspond to the emoji; generating a factor indicating a degree of relevance between the content item and the emoji, wherein the factor is generated based at least in part on the first number of selections of the icon corresponding to the emoji and the determined second number indicative of the one or more number of comments in the plurality of comments that correspond to the emoji;”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Ghadiyali teaches determining, based on the plurality of comments, a second number indicative of a number of comments in the plurality of comments that correspond to the emoji (i.e. “how recently two users have interacted with each other, the rate or amount of information retrieved by one user about an object, or the number and types of comments posted by a user about an object.”; para. [0026]; Examiner note: the determining is interpreted as the how recently two users have interacted with each other. The second number indicative is interpreted as the rate or amount of information. Further, i.e. “an icon 508 used to represent the content or type of the reaction content item”; fig.5a, para. [0049]; Examiner note: the icon is the emoji);
generating a factor indicating a degree of relevance between the content item and the emoji (i.e. “a measure of relevance is determined based on characteristics of the user, the page, the posted content item, and the reaction content item”; fig.1, para. [0033]; Examiner note: the generating a factor indicating a degree of relevance is interpreted as the measure of relevance is determined. The content item is interpreted as the posted content item. The emoji is the reaction content item),
wherein the factor is generated based at least in part on the first number of selections of the icon corresponding to the emoji (i.e. “The reaction content selection module 145 determines if a reaction content item is eligible for presentation to a user based on eligibility criteria describing characteristics of users, pages and advertisements that make a reaction content item eligible to be shown.”; para. [0032]; Examiner note: the first number of selection of the icon is the selection module 145 determines if a reaction content item is eligible) and
the determined second number indicative of the number of comments in the plurality of comments that correspond to the emoji (i.e. “the rate or amount of information retrieved by one user about an object, or the number and types of comments posted by a user about an object.”; para. [0026]; Examiner note: The determined second number indicative is interpreted as the rate or amount of information. Further, i.e. “an icon 508 used to represent the content or type of the reaction content item”; fig. 5a, para. [0049]; Examiner note: the icon is the emoji);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ghadiyali that teaches presenting content in reaction to content generation in an online system, such as a social networking system into the Ball that teaches ranking and filtering content items in a social-networking environment. Additionally, this can facilitate social interaction between or among users.
The motivation for doing so would be to improve the post or the page, because this can promote a content item posted to the page (Ghadiyali, para. [0029]).
As per claim 52, Ball and Ghadiyali teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 51 above.
Additionally, Ball teaches wherein the content item is posted via one or more social platforms (i.e. “comments associated with a post in a social-networking system.”; fig. 3A-3C, para. [0069]; Examiner note: The content item is interpreted as the post. The social platforms are interpreted as the social networking system).
As per claim 61, Ball teaches a system comprising (i.e. “system 1400”; fig. 14, para. [0199]):
control circuitry configured to (i.e. “control units”; para. [0204]):
access reaction information about a content item, the reaction information comprising (i.e. “FIG. 11 illustrates an example of user interactions with a newsfeed 1120. The newsfeed 1120 may be a list of content objects, such as posts and their associated comments.”; fig.11, para. [0121]. Further, i.e. “the target user 1102 (“Sarah”) may interact with the social-networking system 160, e.g., by “liking” a comment 1124 that is displayed on the newsfeed 1120.”; para. [0123]; Examiner note: The accessing is interpreted as the user interaction. The reaction information is interpreted as the “liking” a comment. The content item is interpreted as the newsfeed 1120 may be a list of content objects, such as posts)
a first number indicative of selections of an icon corresponding to an emoji (i.e. “the like count is a count of how many times an author's posts have been marked as liked”; para. [0088]. Further, i.e. “replies (e.g., “?”, “LOL”, “thanks”, “yes”, “no”, emoji,”; para. [0193]; Examiner note: The first number indicative of selections are interpreted as the a count of how many times an author’s posts. The icon is interpreted as the replies. The emoji is interpreted as the like)
via user interfaces of a plurality of user devices (i.e. “FIG. 13 illustrates an example of a user interface 302 that includes user interface elements via which a target user 360 may interact with one or more posts 304 and with one or more comments 1320. The user interface 302 may be presented by a web browser 132 or native application on a display of the client system 130.”; fig. 13, para. [0164]. Further, i.e. “on mobile computing devices of users”; para. [0054]. Examiner note: the user interface is interpreted as the user interface 302. The plurality of user devices are interpreted as the client system 130 and mobile computing devices of user);
retrieve a plurality of comments posted, via the user interfaces of the plurality of user devices, in association with the content item (i.e. “retrieve a plurality of comments associated with a content object. For example, the comments may have been submitted by users of the social-networking system 160 as responses to a post.”; fig. 6, para. [0073]; Examiner note: the comments posted, via the user interface of the plurality of user devices, in association with the content item is interpreted as the comments may have been submitted by users of the social-networking system 160 as responses to a post. The content item is interpreted as the content object);
storage circuitry configured to: store, in a database, the factor in association with an identifier of the content item (i.e. “The interaction log 1118 and newsfeed 1120 may be stored in the data store 164, memory 1204, and/or storage 1206 of a server 162 of the social-networking system 160.”; para. [0125]; Examiner note: the database is interpreted as the data store 164. The content item is interpreted as the newsfeed. Further, i.e. “The interaction log entry may include a comment identifier identifying the comment,”; para. [0166]).
However, it is noted that the prior art of Ball does not explicitly teach “determine, based on the plurality of comments, a second number indicative of one or more a number of comments in the plurality of comments that correspond to the emoji; generate a factor indicating a degree of relevance between the content item and the emoji, wherein the factor is generated based at least in part on the first number of selections of the icon corresponding to the emoji and the determined second number indicative of the one or more number of comments in the plurality of comments that correspond to the emoji;”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Ghadiyali teaches determine, based on the plurality of comments, a second number indicative of one or more a number of comments in the plurality of comments that correspond to the emoji (i.e. “how recently two users have interacted with each other, the rate or amount of information retrieved by one user about an object, or the number and types of comments posted by a user about an object.”; para. [0026]; Examiner note: the determining is interpreted as the how recently two users have interacted with each other. The second number indicative is interpreted as the rate or amount of information. Further, i.e. “an icon 508 used to represent the content or type of the reaction content item”; fig.5a, para. [0049]; Examiner note: the icon is the emoji);
generate a factor indicating a degree of relevance between the content item and the emoji (i.e. “a measure of relevance is determined based on characteristics of the user, the page, the posted content item, and the reaction content item”; fig.1, para. [0033]; Examiner note: the generating a factor indicating a degree of relevance is interpreted as the measure of relevance is determined. The content item is interpreted as the posted content item. The emoji is the reaction content item),
wherein the factor is generated based at least in part on the first number of selections of the icon corresponding to the emoji (i.e. “The reaction content selection module 145 determines if a reaction content item is eligible for presentation to a user based on eligibility criteria describing characteristics of users, pages and advertisements that make a reaction content item eligible to be shown.”; para. [0032]; Examiner note: the first number of selection of the icon is the selection module 145 determines if a reaction content item is eligible) and
the determined second number indicative of the one or more number of comments in the plurality of comments that correspond to the emoji (i.e. “the rate or amount of information retrieved by one user about an object, or the number and types of comments posted by a user about an object.”; para. [0026]; Examiner note: The determined second number indicative is interpreted as the rate or amount of information. Further, i.e. “an icon 508 used to represent the content or type of the reaction content item”; fig. 5a, para. [0049]; Examiner note: the icon is the emoji);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ghadiyali that teaches presenting content in reaction to content generation in an online system, such as a social networking system into the Ball that teaches ranking and filtering content items in a social-networking environment. Additionally, this can facilitate social interaction between or among users.
The motivation for doing so would be to improve the post or the page, because this can promote a content item posted to the page (Ghadiyali, para. [0029]).
As per claim 62, Ball and Ghadiyali teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 61 above.
Additionally, Ball teaches wherein the content item is posted via one or more social platforms (i.e. “comments associated with a post in a social-networking system.”; fig. 3A-3C, para. [0069]; Examiner note: The content item is interpreted as the post. The social platforms are interpreted as the social networking system).
8. Claims 53-57, 59-60 and 63-67, 69-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ball et al. (US 20170139921 A1) in view of Ghadiyali (US 20170212664 A1) in further view of Kazi et al. (US 20170220652 A1).
As per claim 53, Ball and Ghadiyali teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 51 above.
However, it is noted that the combination of prior arts Ball and Ghadiyali do not explicitly teach “determining a genre of the content item; and associating the factor to the genre.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Kazi teaches determining a genre of the content item (i.e. “identifying or determining one or more types of contents or feed items e.g., contents associated identified keywords and identified keywords related to recognized objects in photos or videos,”; para. [0155]; Examiner note: The genre of the content item is interpreted as the types of contents or feed items); and
associating the factor to the genre (i.e. “each page or category 330 specific structured post 340 and each post 340 associated one or more types of contents, multimedia”; para. [0241]; Examiner note: The factor is interpreted as the category 330 specified).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kazi that teaches search queries and generating search-results on an online social network into the combination of the Ball that teaches ranking and filtering content items in a social-networking environment and Ghadiyali that teaches presenting content in reaction to content generation in an online system, such as a social networking system. Additionally, this can facilitate social interaction between or among users.
The motivation for doing so would be to help a user understand a particular content item better by framing it in the appropriate emotional context, as it can help the user understand how others view the content item (Kazi, para. [0006]).
As per claim 54, Ball and Ghadiyali teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 51 above.
However, it is noted that the combination of prior arts of Ball and Ghadiyali do not explicitly teach “further comprising associating the genre to a profile.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Kazi teaches further comprising associating the genre to a profile (i.e. “profile may include, for example, biographic information, demographic information, behavioral information, social information, or other types of descriptive information, such as work experience, educational history, hobbies or preferences, interests, affinities, or location. Interest information may include interests related to one or more categories. Categories may be general or specific,”; para. [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kazi that teaches search queries and generating search-results on an online social network into the combination of the Ball that teaches ranking and filtering content items in a social-networking environment and Ghadiyali that teaches presenting content in reaction to content generation in an online system, such as a social networking system. Additionally, this can facilitate social interaction between or among users.
The motivation for doing so would be to help a user understand a particular content item better by framing it in the appropriate emotional context, as it can help the user understand how others view the content item (Kazi, para. [0006]).
As per claim 55, Ball and Ghadiyali teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 51 above.
However, it is noted that the prior art of Ball does not explicitly teach “wherein determining, based on the plurality of comments, the second number indicative of the one or more number of comments in the plurality of comments that correspond to the emoji comprises: executing sentiment analysis on [[the]] one or more comments in the plurality of comments; and determining, based on the sentiment analysis, that the one or more comments corresponds to the emoji.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Ghadiyali teaches wherein determining, based on the plurality of comments, the second number indicative of the number of comments in the plurality of comments that correspond to the emoji comprises (i.e. “how recently two users have interacted with each other, the rate or amount of information retrieved by one user about an object, or the number and types of comments posted by a user about an object.”; para. [0026]; Examiner note: the determining is interpreted as the how recently two users have interacted with each other. The second number indicative is interpreted as the rate or amount of information. Further, i.e. “an icon 508 used to represent the content or type of the reaction content item”; fig.5a, para. [0049]; Examiner note: the icon is the emoji):
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ghadiyali that teaches presenting content in reaction to content generation in an online system, such as a social networking system into the Ball that teaches ranking and filtering content items in a social-networking environment. Additionally, this can facilitate social interaction between or among users.
The motivation for doing so would be to improve the post or the page, because this can promote a content item posted to the page (Ghadiyali, para. [0029]).
However, it is noted that the combination of prior arts of Ball and Ghadiyali do not explicitly teach “executing sentiment analysis on one or more comments in the plurality of comments; and determining, based on the sentiment analysis, that the one or more comments corresponds to the emoji.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Kazi teaches executing sentiment analysis on one or more comments in the plurality of comments (i.e. “specify whether mood or sentiment information associated with the user may be determined”; para. [0118]); and
determining (i.e. “determining the overall sentiment may include summing different sentiment-scores”; para. [0073]),
based on the sentiment analysis (i.e. “for each of the plurality of communications, the social networking system 160 may calculate one or more sentiment-scores”; para. [0067]),
that one or more comments corresponds to the emoji (i.e. “the emoji "😊" may have meaning within the context of the text (e.g., it may stand for the word "smile"), and the social-networking system 160 may extract the string" 😊 because it happened;” para. [0091]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kazi that teaches search queries and generating search-results on an online social network into the combination of the Ball that teaches ranking and filtering content items in a social-networking environment and Ghadiyali that teaches presenting content in reaction to content generation in an online system, such as a social networking system. Additionally, this can facilitate social interaction between or among users.
The motivation for doing so would be to help a user understand a particular content item better by framing it in the appropriate emotional context, as it can help the user understand how others view the content item (Kazi, para. [0006]).
As per claim 56, Ball and Ghadiyali teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 51 above.
However, it is noted that the combination of prior arts of Ball and Ghadiyali do not explicitly teach “wherein the one or more comments correspond to a plurality of emojis based on the sentiment analysis, the method further comprising: determining weights associated: with each of the plurality of emojis based on the sentiment analysis; and wherein the factor indicates the degree of relevance based on the weights.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Kazi teaches wherein the one or more comments correspond to a plurality of emojis based on the sentiment analysis, the method further comprising (i.e. “for each of the plurality of communications, the social-networking system 160 may calculate one or more sentiment-scores,”; para. [0067]):
determining weights associated (i.e. “the weights being pre-determined by the social networking system,”; para. [0061]):
with each of the plurality of emojis based on the sentiment analysis (i.e. “for
each of the plurality of communications, the social-networking system 160 may calculate one or more sentiment-scores ... e.g., emojis, stickers,”; para. [0067]); and
wherein the factor indicates the degree of relevance based on the weights (i.e. “include a text of the communication. Although this disclosure focuses on textual commentary, it contemplates other forms of commentary, which may include media items e.g., emojis”; para. [0067]. Further, i.e. “This may occur when there is a threshold degree of contradicting sentiment scores for the communication”; para. [0073]. Further, i.e. “The calculated sentiment level may alternatively be a sum of different functions that may be weighted in a suitable manner (e.g., the weights being predetermined by the social-networking system”; para. [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kazi that teaches search queries and generating search-results on an online social network into the combination of the Ball that teaches ranking and filtering content items in a social-networking environment and Ghadiyali that teaches presenting content in reaction to content generation in an online system, such as a social networking system. Additionally, this can facilitate social interaction between or among users.
The motivation for doing so would be to help a user understand a particular content item better by framing it in the appropriate emotional context, as it can help the user understand how others view the content item (Kazi, para. [0006]).
As per claim 57, Ball and Ghadiyali teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 51 above.
However, it is noted that the combination of prior arts of Ball and Ghadiyali do not explicitly teach “further comprising automatically mapping the comment to the emoji based on a rule.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Kazi teaches further comprising automatically (i.e. “automatically formed by the social-networking system”; para. [0042])
mapping the comment to the emoji based on a rule (i.e. “social-networking system 160 may accordingly extract the entire string, including the emoji, as a quotation. Extracting particular elements of particular communications in a particular manner, this disclosure contemplates extracting any suitable element of any suitable communications in any suitable manner”; para. [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kazi that teaches search queries and generating search-results on an online social network into the combination of the Ball that teaches ranking and filtering content items in a social-networking environment and Ghadiyali that teaches presenting content in reaction to content generation in an online system, such as a social networking system. Additionally, this can facilitate social interaction between or among users.
The motivation for doing so would be to help a user understand a particular content item better by framing it in the appropriate emotional context, as it can help the user understand how others view the content item (Kazi, para. [0006]).
As per claim 59, Ball and Ghadiyali teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 51 above.
However, it is noted that the combination of prior arts of Ball and Ghadiyali do not explicitly teach “wherein generating the factor indicating the degree of relevance between the content item and the emoji comprises generating metadata based on the factor and the emoji.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Kazi teaches wherein generating the factor indicating the degree of relevance between the content item (i.e. “include a text of the communication. Although this disclosure
focuses on textual commentary, it contemplates other forms of commentary, which may include media items e.g., emojis”; para. [0067]. Further, i.e. “This may occur when there is a threshold degree of contradicting sentiment-scores for the communication”; para. [0073]. Further, i.e. “The calculated sentiment level may alternatively be a sum of different functions that may be weighted in a suitable manner (e.g., the weights being pre-determined by the social-networking system”; para. [0074]) and
the emoji (i.e. “e.g., emojis, stickers”; para. [0067])
comprises generating metadata based on the factor (i.e. “example and not by way of limitation, the information may include metadata that describes the nature of the content”; para. [0070]) and
the emoji (i.e. “content item, the content distributor associated with the particular content item, metadata associated with the content item, the text of one or more replies made in response to the communication, or the non-textual commentary of the communication (e.g., media items such as emojis)”; para. [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kazi that teaches search queries and generating search-results on an online social network into the combination of the Ball that teaches ranking and filtering content items in a social-networking environment and Ghadiyali that teaches presenting content in reaction to content generation in an online system, such as a social networking system. Additionally, this can facilitate social interaction between or among users.
The motivation for doing so would be to help a user understand a particular content item better by framing it in the appropriate emotional context, as it can help the user understand how others view the content item (Kazi, para. [0006]).
As per claim 60, Ball and Ghadiyali teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 51 above.
However, it is noted that the combination of prior arts of Ball and Ghadiyali do not explicitly teach “wherein generating the factor indicating the degree of relevance between the content item and the emoji comprises generating the factor based on a frequency of the selections of the icon.”
On the other hand, in the same field of endeavor, Kazi teaches wherein generating the factor indicating the degree of relevance between the content item (i.e. “include a text of the communication. Although this disclosure
focuses on textual commentary, it contemplates other forms of commentary, which may include media items e.g., emojis”; para. [0067]. Further, i.e. “This may occur when there is a threshold degree of contradicting sentiment-scores for the communication”; para. [0073]. Furt