DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
With regard to the Non-Final Office Action from 14 July 2025, the Applicant has filed a response on 14 October 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment to the claims. The claims will be considered by their current presentation in the following sections.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 9 and 16 recite the limitations of identifying a media item of a content sharing platform, from a plurality of comments in a comment section for the media item, selecting a predefined number comments based on a number of impressions associated with each comment of the plurality of comments, such that that the number of impressions associated with each comment corresponds to a number of users that have been presented with a comment during a particular time period, determining a comment score indicating comment attributes for each comment, applying the comment scores to determine a comment section score for the media item based on comment scores of individual comments in the predefined number of comments as well as a number of impressions associated with each comment of the predefined number of comments, determining one or more media item attributes of the media item based on the comment section score, and finally associating the media item with the one or more attributes which indicate if a user engagement ranking of the media item should be adjusted.
Nothing in the claims preclude the claims from being performed in the human mind. The entire process involves data gathering and data analysis. The process can be conducted as having a human who observes a post on a social website/application or even a printed publication which users can interact with, the human selects a particular number of comments, the particular number being based on a number of impressions associated with each comment, the impressions being likes, dislikes, thumbs up/down, up/down votes, or other reactions that would normally be attributed to comments, these number of impressions corresponding to a number of users who have been presented with a respective comment whereby the human was able to measure the users’ interactions with during a particular period of time, the human then assigns/calculates a comment score for each of the selected comments within the particular number of comments, the human then applies the individual comment scores of the comments within the particular number of comments to determine a combined comment section score for the media item, the human uses the combined comment section score to determine media attributes of the media item, and finally associates the media item with the one or more media item attributes, in order to decide on if a user engagement ranking of the social media post should be adjusted. The claims hereby recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the claims simple teach of gathering data through the identification of the media item and the identification of a subset of comments, and analysing data through associating scores to the comments, a score to the comment section, attribute determination, attribute association with the media item and the decision made regarding if a ranking should be adjusted. The mentioned processing device, hardware processor and memory device are recited in generic terms.
The invention is not tied to any particular defining structure and simply provides instructions to apply the judicial exception. The technique can be performed by a combination of generic computer system, which would be presented as a tool to implement the abstract idea (classifiable as automation of the mental process steps). The Specification in [0035] provides a platform performing the technique being housed on computer, being suitable to read upon the system required to perform the functions of the claims. The recited memory device and processing device are recited in such a way that they serve as additional elements utilised for performing the abstract idea but are not yet sufficient to amount to significantly more than the mentioned judicial exception. This judicial exception is recited at a high level of generality that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The provided hardware processor is simply provided as a tool used to implement the abstract idea, thereby just being a tool of implementation. The claims do not provide any additional detail. The claims therefore do not include additional elements that would be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the invention is not tied to a practical application. The claims provide techniques that amount to no more than mere instructions that apply the judicial exception which can be performed by a generic device. Merely mentioning the memory device, processing device and hardware processor amounts to no more than general-purpose hardware used as tools to implement the abstract idea and does not provide any particular application other than applying it for the purpose of implementing a judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic device cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 9, and 16 are not eligible.
Claims 2, 10 and 17 provide teaching for determining the one or more media attributes of the media item based on whether the comment section score satisfies one or more criteria that correspond to the media item attributes. A human may make an observation of how the determine combined score relates to attributes of the social media post, in order to assign particular attributes to the social media post. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 3, 11 and 18 provide teaching for the determination of the comment section score based on determining weights for the comment scores regarding one or more factors, applying the weights to comment scores of the predefined number of comments, and determining the comment section score based on an average of the weighted comment scores of the predefined number of comments. A human could determine weights for the comment scores through reading the comments and assigning certain factors to them, and then perform a mathematical weighted averaging of the all scores of all the selected comments. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 4 and 12 provide teaching for the factor being considered to be a ratio of a number of impressions a respective comment has, to the total number of impressions the entire predefined number of comments has, all being received within a time period. A human may gather all such impressions for the selected comments and mathematically compute the required ratio. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claim 5 provides teaching for the factor being considered to be a ratio of a number of likes a respective comment has, to the total number of likes the entire predefined number of comments has, all being received within a time period. A human may gather all such individual ‘likes’ for the selected comments and mathematically compute the required ratio. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 6, 13 and 19 provide teaching for each comment having a plurality of comment scores related to different types, and the comment section score being based on comment scores of the same type. A human may attribute different types of scores while scoring a comment, and in the end, apply only one of the different types to address the selected comment section. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 provide teaching for various forms which the media item attribute could take, such as a user level engagement attribute, a comment section satisfaction attribute, a comment section sentiment attribute, a comment section emotion attribute, a comment section content quality attribute, a comment section subscriber engagement attribute, or a comment section creator engagement attribute, these just serving as additional elements which the system is supposed to particularly search for. A human could visually and mentally compute these attributes. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 8 and 15 provide the predefined number of comments being selected based on a number of likes each of the plurality of comments has within a first time period or a number of impressions each of the plurality of comments received within a second time period. These claims simply set boundaries for the information that is to be collected. A human could work within boundaries of a number of likes/impressions a comment receives, as well a work within aa time frame for receiving such likes/impressions. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuznetsov (US 2019/0155832 A1) in view of TERAN et al. (WO 2012/106273 A2: hereafter — Teran) further in view of Ben-Itzhak (US 2020/0111130 A1).
For claim 1, Kuznetzov discloses a method comprising:
identifying, by a hardware processor of a content sharing platform, a media item of the content sharing platform (Kuznetsov: [0109] — a processor (suitable for performing the claimed steps); Fig. 2, [0030] – [0031] — displaying an item of media content on a YouTube platform (which is a content sharing platform));
selecting, by the hardware processor, a predefined number of comments from a plurality of comments in a comment section presented with the media item [[based on a number of impressions associated with each comment of the plurality of comments, wherein the number of impressions associated with each comment corresponds to a number of users that have been presented with a respective comment during a particular time interval]] (Kuznetsov: [0006], [0101] — identifying a set of comments associated with the item of media content; Fig. 2, [0031] — comments, 221, 222, 223, 224 being indicative of a comment section);
determining, by the hardware processor, a comment score for each comment in the predefined number of comments, the comment score indicating comment attributes associated with a respective comment in the predefined number of comments (Kuznetsov: [0067] — the sentiment profile engine generates individual sentiment scores for the comments);
determining, by the hardware processor, at least one comment section score for the media item based on comment scores of individual comments in the predefined number subset of comments [[and a number of impressions associated with each comment of the predefined number of comments]] (Kuznetsov: [0067] — the sentiment profile engine that aggregates the individual comment score for all the comments);
determining, by the hardware processor, one or more media item attributes of the media item based on the at least one comment section score (Kuznetsov: [0067] — a sentiment as the attribute of the item of media content based on the aggregated individual comment scores); and
associating, by the hardware processor, the media item with the one or more media item attributes, wherein the one or more media item attributes are indicative of whether a [[user engagement]] ranking of the media item is to be adjusted (Kuznetsov: [0082]–[0083] — associating the sentiment with the item of media content; [0084] — ‘In some embodiments, a content sentiment score showing a high likelihood of a type of sentiment based on features extracted from the item of media content may be further used to supplement or strengthen an aggregate sentiment score based on comments associated with the item of media content’ (showing that a high likelihood of a sentiment attribute being used to strengthen an aggregate sentiment score based on the comments of the media item, thus being used to strengthen or increase the ranking of the association of the media item with the sentiment attribute)).
The reference of Kuznetsov provides teaching for the selection of a set of comments, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention now further provides teaching for the selection of a subset of comments based on a number of impressions. This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Teran is seen to teach as:
selecting, by the hardware processor, a predefined number of comments from a plurality of comments in a comment section presented with the media item based on a number of impressions associated with each comment of the plurality of comments, wherein the number of impressions associated with each comment corresponds to a number of users that have been presented with a respective comment during a particular time interval (Teran: [0052] — presenting a stream of comments (a predefined number of comments being selected for display) that have been received from other consumers (impressed upon by other users whom the comments have been presented to) who checked in to the content at the same time (the same time here indicates checking within a particular time period)).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the known teaching of Teran which selects a collection of comments to be applied to a user based on a time period and impressions by other users, with the teaching of Kuznetsov which teaches the selection of a set of comments from within a larger collection of comments, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of the selection of comments which are deemed to be more applicable to the current user, thereby increasing relevancy. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415–421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Kuznetsov in view of Teran provides teaching for determining a comment section score based on individual comment scores so as to be able to indicate whether the ranking of a media item should be adjusted. This differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention now further provides teaching for providing a comment section score for the media item based on a number impressions associated with each comment of the predetermined number of comments. This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Ben-Itzhak is now introduced to teach as:
determining, by the hardware processor, at least one comment section score for the media item based on comment scores of individual comments in the predefined number subset of comments and a number of impressions associated with each comment of the predefined number of comments (Ben-Itzhak: [0055] — the content item may include metrics indicative of its relevance, part of the metrics being the number of comments people posted and the sentiment of the comments (teaching of a comment section score based on the number of impressions associated with the comments));
associating, by the hardware processor, the media item with the one or more media item attributes, wherein the one or more media item attributes are indicative of whether a user engagement ranking of the media item is to be adjusted (Ben-Itzhak: [0073] — applying the metrics to rank an item and determine that a user is likely to engage with it (teaching of a user engagement ranking of a media item)).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the known teaching of Ben-Itzhak which provides media item metrics based on the interactions with comments on the media item, so as to be able to determine that the media item is to be recommended to the user through ranking the user’s likelihood of engaging with it, with the teaching of the combination of Kuznetsov in view of Teran which provides determining a comment section score based on individual comment scores so as to indicate whether the ranking of a media item is to be adjusted, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of applying comments which may have similar sentiments to a current user’s profile to determine if the media item is worth recommending to a user, so that the user gets presented with content the user would likely interact with. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415–421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
For claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Kuznetsov in view of Teran further in view of Ben-Itzhak discloses the method wherein determining the one or more media item attributes of the media item comprises determining whether the at least one comment section score satisfies one or more criteria corresponding to the one or more media item attributes (Kuznetsov: [0098] — ‘the content comment server 104 identifies related items of media content with sentiment similarity scores that are higher than a defined threshold’ (indicating the satisfaction of the one or more criteria for the attribute as obtaining the sentiment similarity score based on being higher than a defined threshold)).
For claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated and combination of Kuznetsov in view of Teran further in view of Ben-Itzhak discloses the method, wherein determining the at least one comment section score based on the comment scores comprises:
determining weights for the comment scores based on one or more factors (Kuznetsov: [0073] — determining weights for individual sentiment scores (of the comments));
applying the weights to the comment scores of the predefined number of comments (Kuznetsov: [0073] — the weights are applied to the comments); and
determining the comment section score based on an average of weighted comment scores of the predefined number of comments (Kuznetsov: [0072] — aggregating the scores by computing an average of the individual sentiment scores).
For claim 6, claim 3 is incorporated and combination of Kuznetsov in view of Teran further in view of Ben-Itzhak discloses the method, wherein each comment has a plurality of comment scores pertaining to different comment score types (Kuznetsov: [0078] — having several sentiment types for the comment scores, the types being ‘happy’, ‘scary’, ‘boring’, etc.), and wherein each of the at least one comment section score is determined based on comment scores of a same comment score type (Kuznetsov: [0078] — having determined scores for the different score types, such as {scary, 8}, {boring, -2}, {informative, 0}).
For claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated and combination of Kuznetsov in view of Teran further in view of Ben-Itzhak discloses the method, wherein the one or more media item attributes for the media item comprise at least one of a user level engagement attribute, a comment section satisfaction attribute, a comment section sentiment attribute, a comment section emotion attribute, a comment section content quality attribute, a comment section subscriber engagement attribute, or a comment section creator engagement attribute (Kuznetsov: [0067] — the sentiment profile engine generates individual sentiment scores for the comments).
As for claim 9, system claim 9 and method claim 1 are related as system and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Kuznetsov in [0108] provides teaching for storage memory and a processor suitable to read upon the limitations of this claims. Accordingly, claim 9 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 1.
As for claim 10, system claim 10 and method claim 2 are related as system and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 10 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 2.
As for claim 11, system claim 11 and method claim 3 are related as system and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 11 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 3.
As for claim 13, system claim 13 and method claim 6 are related as system and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 13 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 6.
As for claim 14, system claim 14 and method claim 7 are related as system and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 14 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 7.
As for claim 16, computer program product claim 16 and method claim 1 are related as computer program product storing executable instructions required for performing the claimed method steps on a computer. Kuznetsov in [0109] provides teaching for such non-transitory storage media suitable to read upon the limitations of this claim. Accordingly, claim 16 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 1.
As for claim 17, computer program product claim 17 and method claim 2 are related as computer program product storing executable instructions required for performing the claimed method steps on a computer. Accordingly, claim 17 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 2.
As for claim 18, computer program product claim 18 and method claim 3 are related as computer program product storing executable instructions required for performing the claimed method steps on a computer. Accordingly, claim 18 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 3.
As for claim 19, computer program product claim 19 and method claim 6 are related as computer program product storing executable instructions required for performing the claimed method steps on a computer. Accordingly, claim 19 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 6.
As for claim 20, computer program product claim 20 and method claim 7 are related as computer program product storing executable instructions required for performing the claimed method steps on a computer. Accordingly, claim 20 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 7.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuznetsov (US 2019/0155832 A1) in view of Teran (WO 2012/106273 A2) further in view of Ben-Itzhak (US 2020/0111130 A1) as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Ball et al. (US 2017/0142044 A1: hereafter — Ball).
For claim 4, claim 3 is incorporated but the combination of Kuznetsov in view of Teran further in view of Ben-Itzhak fails to disclose the limitations of this claim, for which the reference of Ball is now introduced to teach as the method, wherein the one or more factors comprise a ratio of a number of impressions a respective comment in the predefined number of comments received within a time period compared to a total number of impressions the predefined number of comments received within the time period (Ball: [0191] — ‘The sum of time spent by all users may then be used as a ranking score for the comment, so that the comment having the highest total time spent by users is ranked higher than all other comments evaluated for the time period’ (indicating a comparison of the impressions as the time spent by interacting with the comment, of one comment to the plurality of other comments, also indicating a ratio)).
The combination of Kuznetsov in view of Teran further in view of Ben-Itzhak provides teaching for the determining of weights for comment scores based on certain factors. This however differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for the factors comprising a ratio of the number of impressions of a comment to a number of impressions of the comment within the comment section during a time period. This is however not new to the art as the reference of Ball is seen to teach above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the known teaching of Ball which compares the impression based on an amount of time spent on a comment to the amount of time spent interacting with the comments within a time period, with the determination of comment scores based on sentiment as taught by the combination of Kuznetsov in view of Teran further in view of Ben-Itzhak, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of determining how much emphasis to place on each individual comment while considering a particular attribute, to the other available comments, at a time period where the comments are relevant to the posted media item. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415–421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 12, system claim 12 and method claim 4 are related as system and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 12 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuznetsov (US 2019/0155832 A1) in view of Teran (WO 2012/106273 A2) further in view of Ben-Itzhak (US 2020/0111130 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Ball (US 2017/0142044 A1) and further in view of Bist et al. (US 2020/0288206 A1: hereafter — Bist).
For claim 5, claim 3 is incorporated and as applied to claim 4 above, the combination of Kuznetsov in view of Teran further in view of Ben-Itzhak further in view of Ball provides teaching for the method, wherein the one or more factors comprise a ratio of a [[number of likes]] a respective comment in the predefined number of comments received within a time period compared to a [[total number of likes]] the predefined number of comments received within the time period (Ball: [0191] — ‘The sum of time spent by all users may then be used as a ranking score for the comment, so that the comment having the highest total time spent by users is ranked higher than all other comments evaluated for the time period’ (indicating a comparison of the impressions as the time spent by interacting with the comment, of one comment to the plurality of other comments, also indicating a ratio); [0192] — determining a degree of interaction for each impression; [0010] — checking user impressions with user ‘Likes’ also being an impression (showing that the calculation above based on the time spent can also be performed based on the number of ‘Likes’ for a comment); [0124] — logging each interaction which may be a ’Like’ (linking the ‘likes’ to the interactions)).
The same motivation for incorporating the reference of Ball as applied to claim 4 above is applicable here still.
The combination of Kuznetsov in view of Teran further in view of Ben-Itzhakin and further in view of Ball provides teaching for the comparing impressions based on an amount of time spent on a comment to the amount of time spent interacting with the comments within a time period, while also relating the impressions of the interaction to the ‘Likes’. This combination however particularly fails to teach of the ratio involving the ‘Likes’ of the comments.
The reference of Bist is introduced to teach this as provided: (Bist: [0189] — an embodiment being the generating of a ratio graph of reactions based on likes).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the known like-ratio teaching of Bist, with the teaching of the combination of Kuznetsov in view of Teran further in view of Ben-Itzhakin and further in view of Ball which compares impressions based on interaction, providing a ‘Like’ also as an interaction, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of determining how much emphasis to place on each individual comment based on the proportion of ‘likes’ the comment gets in relation to other comments. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415–421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuznetsov (US 2019/0155832 A1) in view of Teran (WO 2012/106273 A2) further in view of Ben-Itzhak (US 2020/0111130 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Dogruöz et al. (US 2017/0300976 A1: hereafter — Dogruoz) and further in view of Ball (US 2017/0142044 A1).
For claim 8, claim 1 is incorporated but the combination of Kuznetsov in view of Teran further in view of Ben-Itzhak fails to disclose the limitation of this claim, for which the reference of Dogruoz is now introduced to teach as the method, wherein the predefined number of comments is selected based on at least one of a number of likes of each of the plurality of comments [[within a first time period or the number of impressions each of the plurality of comments received within a second time period]] (Dogruoz [0027] — selection of a subset of comments; [0071] — comment selection based on an associated number of likes).
The combination of Kuznetsov in view of Teran further in view of Ben-Itzhak provides teaching for a selection of a subset of comments, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention now further provides teaching for the identification of the subset of comments based on a number of likes of each of the plurality of comments. This is however not new to the art as the reference of Dogruoz is seen to teach above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the known of teaching of Dogruoz which selects a subset of comments based a number of likes, with the teaching of a selection of comments as taught by the combination of Kuznetsov in view of Teran further in view of Ben-Itzhak, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of selecting only relatively engaging comments, rather than comments with little to no engagement that may not be reflective of an attribute of the media item. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415–421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Kuznetsov in view of Teran further in view of Ben-Itzhak and further in view of Dogruoz provides teaching for the identification of comments based on a number of likes. This combination however differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further teaches of the identification of comments within a first time period.
This isn’t new to the art as the reference of
the method, wherein the predefined number of comments is selected based on at least one of a number of likes of each of the plurality of comments within a first time period [[or the number of impressions each of the plurality of comments received within a second time period]] (Ball: [0197] — considering a subset of impressions that occur within a recent period of time).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the known technique of Ball which considers impressions occurring within a time period, into improving upon the technique of the combination of Kuznetsov in view of Teran further in view of Ben-Itzhak further in view of Dogruoz which identifies comments to be selected based on a number of likes, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of selecting comments that are more relevant based on the time through the selection of recent comments, rather than selecting comments that might be considered more stale and no longer so relevant. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415–421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 15, system claim 15 and method claim 8 are related as system and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 15 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 8.
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 OLUWADAMILOLA M. OGUNBIYI whose telephone number is (571)272-4708. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursday (8:00 AM – 5:30 PM Eastern Standard Time).
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, PARAS D. SHAH can be reached at (571) 270-1650. 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.
/OLUWADAMILOLA M OGUNBIYI/Examiner, Art Unit 2653
/Paras D Shah/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
01/29/2026