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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 13, and 14 have been amended. Claims 17 and 18 have been added. Claims 1-18 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Regarding newly amended claim 1,First, applicant submits that the claims are patent eligible consistent with the USPTO guidance including example 37 as explained in the last response. The examiner rejected this argument contending that example 37 recited an improvement to the GUI itself by rearranging the icons ("how icons are arranged for quicker access") whereas the claimed invention merely improves the content provided to the user. For example, the examiner contends that the claims merely recite generic computing. Applicant submits that the claimed invention also improves the user interface ( e.g., a search result arrangement and an icon arrangement have the same effect) and is eligible consistent with the USPTO guidance. For example, consistent with the guidance and as shown below, USPTO example 37 would also merely recite generic computing features under the examiner's interpretation.
Example 37 Claim 1
Current Claim 1 1
A method of rearranging icons on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer system, the method comprising:
A task support system for supporting each of a plurality of users in tasks, the task support system comprising at least one processor configured to:
receiving, via the GUI, a user selection to organize each icon based on a specific criteria, wherein the specific criteria is an amount of use of each icon;
receive, via a Graphical User Interface, a user selection to organize the search results based on a specific criteria, wherein the specific criteria is a number of reactions of each search result;
determining, by a processor, the amount of use of each icon over a predetermined period of time; and
receive a reaction to each of a plurality of pieces of data registered in the task support system;
acquire the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data in real time;
automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use.
display, on a display unit, a search result screen that shows search results relating to the plurality of pieces of data based on the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data;
move the search results with the highest number of reactions to a position on the top of the search result screen based on the acquired number of reactions; and
wherein the search results are selected from among the plurality of pieces of data.
Moreover, applicant amended claim 1 to further clarify that "the plurality of pieces of data are posts in a plurality of threads or in-apps" and "the plurality of pieces of data are acquired from.
In response, Examiner respectfully submits that example 37 is directed to a specific improvement to a graphical user interface, including a particular manner of presenting information that improves computer functionality. In contrast, the present claims are directed to organizing and displaying search results based on reactions, which is a method of organizing information and presenting content to users. The claims do not improve the functioning of the computer or GUI. The claims merely displays search results after ranking the. Accordingly, the claims remain directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, and lack an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Second, and similarly, applicant submits the claims are patent eligible consistent with the USPTO's newest guidance. For example, in the August 4, 2025, Section 101 "Reminder" memorandum1, the USPTO explains that the claims must be considered "as a whole." Id., at Page 3 (emphasis in original). As noted above, the examiner appears to be considering the claim elements individually rather than as a whole. Similarly, the guidance explains that "Examiners should be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) from claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis)." Page 3. Here, the claims recite several features that are not directed to the abstract idea such as the "display" step. The guidance also explains that if it is a close call, the examiners should only reject the claim if it is more likely than not ineligible. Accordingly, given the above similarity to example 37, applicant submits that the claims are more likely eligible than not.
Examiner respectfully submits that the rejection evaluates the claim as a whole, including all recited limitations in combination. When so considered, the claim is directed to collecting, analyzing and displaying information, which is an abstract idea. The recited “display” step merely presents the results of the abstract idea and does not render the claim non-abstract. The claim is directed to an abstract idea and lacks additional elements that would integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Third, applicant submits that the claims are patent eligible in view of the recent precedential appeal decision3 authored by the new USPTO director which further supports eligibility. In that decision, Director Squires explained that the appeal panel too broadly interpreted the claims as directed to the alleged abstract idea and did not properly consider the technical improvement. Decision at 6-10. For example, Director Squires explained that the panel effectively considered any software algorithm as "generic computer components" and that this "eschewed the clear teachings" of precedent. Id., at 9-10. Ultimately, Director Squires determined that "although independent claim 1 may recite an abstract idea, it is not directed to an abstract idea. Instead, we determine that independent claim 1, when considered as a whole, integrates an abstract idea into a practical application."
Examiner respectfully submits that the present claim does not recite any specific algorithm or technical mechanism for improving computer functionality, and instead recites functional results, namely organizing, filtering and displaying search results based on reaction counts. The present claim does not improve the functioning of a computer or a graphical user interface, but instead improves the selection and presentation of information to a user, which is an abstract idea. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not recite a technological improvement comparable to that in the cited decision.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a) & (b)
Applicant argues that “ The examiner contends that there is no support for “real time” in the specification. Applicant submits that “real time” is supported by the originally filed application. For example, as discussed with regard to FIG. 12 which “is a flow chart for illustrating an example of processing to be executed by the task support system1,” the user logs in at S1 and the system performs the various processing and updates the display in real time. As depicted, the system repeatedly iterates to S8 to determine the user operation and then updates the display at S9. Thus, the system performs the processing while the user is logged in and using the application. Moreover, paragraph [0071] of the published application states "[t]he number-of-reactions acquisition module 102 acquires the number of reactions when a condition relating to the number of reactions is designated as the sort condition or the filter condition." Thus, as per the claim, the system acquires the numbers of reactions when the search is conducted (i.e. in real time) because the number of reactions are one of the conditions.”
In response Examiner respectfully submits that the cited figure illustrates user-driven updating of displayed search results based on changes to sort/filter conditions (S8-S9), which requires explicit user operation. There is no disclosure of continuously or automatically acquiring the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data contemporaneously with their occurrence, nor any indication of immediate processing upon receipt of a user reaction. Fig. 12 does not explicitly disclose “real time” acquisition of the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data. The figure merely shows iterative processing (e.g. S8-S9) and updating of display based on user operations. Such iterative or responsive display updating does not equate to acquiring underlying data in real time.
Paragraph [0071] discloses that “The number-of-reactions acquisition module 102 acquires the number of reactions to each of a plurality of pieces of data. The number-of-reactions acquisition module 102 can acquire the number of reactions to any piece of data. For example, the number-of-reactions acquisition module 102 acquires the number of reactions to at least one piece of data that satisfies the search conditions designated by the user. The number-of-reactions acquisition module 102 acquires the number of reactions when a condition relating to the number of reactions is designated as the sort condition or the filter condition. “
This disclosure indicates that the number of reactions is obtained in response to a query or filtering operation, not continuously or contemporaneously with the occurrence of reactions. In other words, the system acquires the number of reactions at the time of processing a search condition, not real-time acquisition. This disclosure does not describe acquiring the number of reactions in real time.
Accordingly, the specification does not reasonably convey prosses of acquiring the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data in ”real time”, and the 112 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Regarding the newly amended claim 1, Applicant submits that First, the cited references do not disclose that the pieces of data, which are reacted to, are posts in a plurality of threads or in apps, these features are not disclosed. Second, applicant submits that a person of skill in the art would not combine the references. In the rejection, the examiner states that it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Perincherry with the teachings of Komuves to get a better outcome but does not provide a reason or motivation to combine. Applicant submits that a rejection must provide articulated reasoning with rational underpinning as required under KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and MPEP p 143. Moreover, applicant submits that a person of skill in the art would not combine them. Komuves is directed to a system for scoring the popularity of multimedia content objects based on user ratings (likes/dislikes, stars) and calculating associated trend scores over time. Conversely, Perincherry is directed to assessing an individual's alignment with organizational purpose by generating "purpose connection metrics" from responses to adaptive prompts and activity data within enterprise systems. Thus, the references address fundamentally different problems in different domains
PNG
media_image1.png
2
37
media_image1.png
Greyscale
consumer-facing content ranking versus enterprise organizational assessment. Therefore, there would be no motivation to combine them
PNG
media_image2.png
5
4
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Applicant submits that cited sections of Perincherry discuss various means of filtering, they do not disclose filtering such that the pieces of data to which a specific one of the plurality of users has reacted remains. Applicant also notes that paragraph [0160] and FIG. 7 discuss the functionality of the interactive leaderboard for when the user selects a given user and obtains more information on the selected user rather than filtering content.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant submits that the examiner cites several paragraphs in Perincherry, but none of them disclose classifying the search results "afier the search results are acquired."
Regarding the new claim 17, Applicant submits that new claim 17 is also not rendered obvious by the cited references. In relevant part, claim 17 recites: "wherein the display includes a posted-date, a posting-user identifier, and a posting range for each of the pieces of data.' As depicted, for example, in FIGS. 4-8, the displayed search results include the postinguser, posted-date, and a posting range (e.g., company wide or IP department). This information is not disclosed in the cited references. For example, Perincherry does not disclose depicting the reacted to data but rather discloses depicting users based on the number of reactions to their content and Komuves depicts content but does not disclose the posting-user or posting range.
Regarding the new claim 18, Applicant submits the claim is not disclosed by the cited references.
In response, Examiner relies on a new combination of references.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the guidance set forth in MPEP 2106 which has incorporated the 2019 PEG. Independent claim 1 recites a system, Independent claim 13 recites a method and Independent claim 14 recites a non-transitory information storage medium. Therefore, Step 1 is satisfied for claims 1-18.
The independent claim 1 recites: A task support system for supporting each of a plurality of users in tasks, the task support system comprising at least one processor configured to:
receive a reaction to each of a plurality of pieces of data registered in the task support system; wherein the plurality of pieces of data are posts in a plurality of threads or in-apps; wherein the plurality of pieces of data are acquired from data shared within the task support system;
acquire the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data in real time; and
display, on a display unit, a search result screen that shows search results relating to the plurality of pieces of data based on the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data;
receive, via a Graphical User Interface, a user selection to organize the search results based on a specific criteria, wherein the specific criteria is a number of reactions of each search result;
move the search results with the highest number of reactions to a position on the top of the search result screen based on the acquired number of reactions;
and wherein the search results are selected from among the plurality of pieces of data.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a system, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The above-noted limitations of receive, acquire, display, receive, move and select as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, receive a reaction to each of a plurality of pieces of data registered in the task support system; wherein the plurality of pieces of data are acquired from data shared within the task support system; acquire the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data; and display a search result screen that shows search results relating to the plurality of pieces of data based on the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data; receive a user selection to organize the search results based on a specific criteria, wherein the specific criteria is a number of reactions of each search result; move the search results with the highest number of reactions to a position on the top of the search result screen based on the acquired number of reactions; and wherein the search results are selected from among the plurality of pieces of data. in the context of this claim encompasses a concept performed in the human mind (including observations and preform an evaluation, judgment, and opinion) and can be performed with pen and paper.
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: In Step 2A Prong 2, we are directed to Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are not any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception when the additional elements individually and in combination that integrate the exception into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because besides the abstract idea. The claim 1 recites additional elements of at least one processor, posts in a plurality of threads or in-apps, a display unit and a Graphical User Interface. At least one processor, the display unit and the Graphical User Interface are so generic that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. The additional element of “posts in a plurality of threads or in-apps” merely characterize the information being processed.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, there is no additional element integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-12 and 15-18 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 2-12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the same rational of claim 1.
The independent claim 13 recites:
A task support method for supporting each of a plurality of users in tasks, the task support method comprising:
receiving a reaction to each of a plurality of pieces of data registered in a task support system; wherein the plurality of pieces of data are posts in a plurality of threads or in-apps; wherein the plurality of pieces of data are acquired from data shared within the task support system;
acquiring the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data in real time; and
displaying, on a display unit, a search result screen that shows search results relating to the plurality of pieces of data based on the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data;
receiving, via a Graphical User Interface, a user selection to organize the search results based on a specific criteria, wherein the specific criteria is a number of reactions of each search result; and
moving the search results with the highest number of reactions to a position on the top of the search result screen based on the acquired number of reactions; and
wherein the search results are selected from among the plurality of pieces of data.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
These “receiving, acquiring, displaying, receiving, moving and selecting ” are acts that can be practically performed in the human mind. Such mental receiving, acquiring and displaying fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract idea set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The recitation of a display unit in claim 13 do not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the claim here merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are not any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception when the additional elements individually and in combination that integrate the exception into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because besides the abstract idea. The claim 13 recites additional element of posts in a plurality of threads or in-apps, a display unit and a Graphical User Interface.
The display unit and the Graphical User Interface are so generic that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. The additional element of “posts in a plurality of threads or in-apps” merely characterize the information being processed.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In particular, the claim13 recites an additional elements of posts in a plurality of threads or in-apps, a display unit and a Graphical User Interface.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “display unit” and “Graphical User Interface” are simply performing a generic computer function amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element of “posts in a plurality of threads or in-apps” merely characterize the information being processed.
Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
The independent claim 14 recites:
A non-transitory information storage medium having stored thereon a program for causing a computer for supporting each of a plurality of users in tasks to:
receive a reaction to each of a plurality of pieces of data registered in a task support system; wherein the plurality of pieces of data are posts in a plurality of threads or in-apps; wherein the plurality of pieces of data are acquired from data shared within the task support system;
acquire the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data in real time; and
display, on a display unit, a search result screen that shows search results relating to the plurality of pieces of data based on the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data;
receive, via a Graphical User Interface, a user selection to organize the search results based on a specific criteria, wherein the specific criteria is a number of reactions of each search result;
move the search results with the highest number of reactions to a position on the top of the search result screen based on the acquired number of reactions; and
wherein the search results are selected from among the plurality of pieces of data.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
These “receive, acquire, display, receive, move and select ” are acts that can be practically performed in the human mind. Such mental receive, acquire and display fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract idea set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The recitation of a non-transitory information storage medium, computer, posts in a plurality of threads or in-apps, a display unit and a Graphical User Interface in claim 14 do not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the claim here merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are not any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception when the additional elements individually and in combination that integrate the exception into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because besides the abstract idea. The claim 14 recites additional elements of a non-transitory information storage medium, computer, posts in a plurality of threads or in-apps ,a display unit and a Graphical User Interface.
The non-transitory information storage medium, computer, display unit and Graphical User Interface are so generic that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. The additional element of “posts in a plurality of threads or in-apps” merely characterize the information being processed.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In particular, the claim 14 recites additional elements of a non-transitory information storage medium, computer, posts in a plurality of threads or in-apps, a display unit and a Graphical User Interface.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “non-transitory information storage medium, computer, display unit and Graphical User Interface” are simply performing a generic computer function amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element of “posts in a plurality of threads or in-apps” merely characterize the information being processed.
Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 13 and 14 recite “ acquire the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data in real time”. The specification does not disclose anything about “in real time”.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 15-18 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of the base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 13 and 14 recite “acquire the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data in real time”. Since the specification does not disclose anything about “in real time”, it is unclear to the examiner how to interpret the limitation of these claims. The specification only shows the following on page 19, “The number-of-reactions acquisition module 102 may acquire the number of reactions by aggregating the number of reactions to the data on the spot”. For purpose of examination in view of the art below, the phrase "in real time” is interpreted as “on the spot”.
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, 7-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (US 11552919 B1) in view of Primke (US 2016/0098493 Al)
Regarding claim 1, Shah discloses: A task support system for supporting each of a plurality of users in tasks, the task support system comprising at least one processor configured to: receive a reaction to each of a plurality of pieces of data registered in the task support system; (Shah, column 12, line 19- engagement associated with the message such as a like or ReTweet (corresponding to a “reaction”) ; column 8, line 65-The custom timeline can include each of the messages previously saved by the user; column 14, line 14- The saved messages are not a static representation of the message. Instead, the custom timeline is used to dynamically maintain the context surrounding public engagement with the message…line 21- For example, when the user returns to the custom timeline, the message statistics are current in terms of public engagement, e.g., number of likes; column 5, line 53- the tracking information may include recorded engagement history between users; )
wherein the plurality of pieces of data are posts in a plurality of threads or in-apps; (Shah, column 14, line 13- Threading of Conversations, The saved messages are not a static representation of the message. Instead, the custom timeline is used to dynamically maintain the context surrounding public engagement with the message…line 35-the number of replies within a conversation thread can be a ranking criteria; column 9, line 1- the messages were broadcasted or posted on the messaging platform; column 3, line 2- The user can later share one or more saved messages with other users… subscribed content can be auto-populated to a designated custom timeline allowing a user to automatically collect posts from a source of interest; column 12, line 62- For example, the user can share an entire custom timeline in the body of a post that is posted to associated accounts;)
wherein the plurality of pieces of data are acquired from data shared within the task support system; (Shah, column 3, line 2- The user can later share one or more saved messages with other users… subscribed content can be auto-populated to a designated custom timeline allowing a user to automatically collect posts from a source of interest; column 9, line 1- the messages were broadcasted or posted on the messaging platform; column 12, line 62- For example, the user can share an entire custom timeline in the body of a post that is posted to associated accounts; column 14, line 13- Threading of Conversations, The saved messages are not a static representation of the message. Instead, the custom timeline is used to dynamically maintain the context surrounding public engagement with the message…line 35- For example, the number of replies within a conversation thread can be a ranking criteria, e.g., conversations with more replies can be scored higher than those with few replies.) acquire the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data in real time; (Shah, column 8, line 65-The custom timeline can include each of the messages previously saved by the user; column 14, line 14- The saved messages are not a static representation of the message. Instead, the custom timeline is used to dynamically maintain the context surrounding public engagement with the message…line 21- For example, when the user returns to the custom timeline, the message statistics are current in terms of public engagement, e.g., number of likes (corresponding to “number of reactions”); column 3, line 47- The messaging platform 100 is a platform for facilitating real-time communication between one or more entities…line 54- The messaging platform 100 may be configured to enable users to communicate in "real-time", to converse with other users with a minimal delay and to conduct a conversation with one or more other users during concurrent sessions. Thus, the messaging platform 100 may allow a user to broadcast or post messages and may display the messages to one or more other users within a reasonable time frame so as to facilitate a live conversation between the users.)
display, on a display unit, a search result screen that shows search results relating to the plurality of pieces of data based on the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data; (Shah, column 12, line 46, Searching, a user can perform a search in one or more custom timelines. For example, the user interface presenting the custom timeline can also include a search field. The user can submit one or more query terms and search the messages of the custom timeline; column 14, line 13- Threading of Conversations, The saved messages are not a static representation of the message. Instead, the custom timeline is used to dynamically maintain the context surrounding public engagement with the message…line 35-the number of replies within a conversation thread can be a ranking criteria, e.g., conversations with more replies can be scored higher than those with few replies ;)
move the search results with the highest number of reactions to a position on the top of the search result screen based on the acquired number of reactions; (Shah, column 16, line 21- when a well-known celebrity joins a conversation it may push their conversation to the top of the ranking ;column 14, lines 30-40, e.g. The particular conversation portions shown can be based on a ranking applied to the conversations. The ranking of conversations can be based on a number of ranking criteria. For example, the number of replies within a conversation thread can be a ranking criteria, e.g., conversations with more replies can be scored higher than those with few replies; column 6, line 31- The stream of messages can be presented according to particular ordering and/or ranking techniques; )
and wherein the search results are selected from among the plurality of pieces of data. (Shah, column 12, line 52- the messaging platform can use a search engine used to search the message platform generally, while restricting the search to the messages of the custom timeline, e.g., based on the message identifiers of messages saved to the custom timeline. The search can be limited to those messages in the custom timeline, or a general search can have results filtered based on the message identifiers.) However Shah does not clearly disclose:
receive, via a Graphical User Interface, a user selection to organize the search results based on a specific criteria, wherein the specific criteria is a number of reactions of each search result;
However Primke discloses:
receive, via a Graphical User Interface, a user selection to organize the search results based on a specific criteria, wherein the specific criteria is a number of reactions of each search result; (Primke, Fig. 7C, e.g. Sort By item 715 “Most Likes”, item 716 “Most Comments”; [0063] , e.g. The search-results page may also contain additional query-filter elements that the querying user can select to further refine the search query, or to pivot the search query ( e.g., query a different domain). In particular embodiments, the query-domain may include… applications (also referred to as "apps"), messages, or other suitable object-types associated with the online social network… sort by (relevance; newest; oldest; likes; comments) or other suitable filters)
move the search results with the highest number of reactions to a position on the top of the search result screen based on the acquired number of reactions; (Primke, Fig. 7C, e.g. Sort By item 715 “Most Likes”, item 716 “Most Comments”; [0056], e.g. The search results may also be ranked and presented to the user according to their relative degree of relevance to the user… resources that are more relevant to the search query or to the user may be ranked higher than the resources that are less relevant to the search query or the user. [0063] , e.g. The search-results page may also contain additional query-filter elements that the querying user can select to further refine the search query, or to pivot the search query ( e.g., query a different domain). In particular embodiments, the query-domain may include… applications (also referred to as "apps"), messages, or other suitable object-types associated with the online social network… sort by (relevance; newest; oldest; likes; comments) or other suitable filters)and wherein the search results are selected from among the plurality of pieces of data. (Primke, [0063] the "posts" domain may include the following filters: posted/shared by (author; shared by); tagged with (media tag; with tag; mention); date posted; liked/commented on by ( commented on by; liked by); sort by (relevance; newest; oldest; likes; comments); location; post type; link URL; language; posted to (timeline; group; event) or other suitable filters; Fig. 7C, e.g. “Posts”; Sort By item 715 “Most Likes”, item 716 “Most Comments”;)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Shah with the teaching of Primke in order to provide the search results may be personalized for the querying user and the search results may also be ranked and presented to the user according to their relative degree of relevance to the user, (Primke, [0056]) and also allow a user to input a search query using a multi-step implementation and a graphical interface to select query domains and apply query filters, (Primke, [0007]) and also to allow a querying user to search for content that is connected to particular users or concepts in the social graph and can then select an appropriate query to search for the desired content, (Primke, [0059]).
Claims 13 and 14 correspond to claim 1, and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 2, Shah in view of Primke discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Claim 2 further recites: wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute sorting relating to the search results based on the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data, and display the search result screen on the display unit. (Shah, column 14, line 13- Threading of Conversations, The saved messages are not a static representation of the message. Instead, the custom timeline is used to dynamically maintain the context surrounding public engagement with the message…line 22 the message statistics are current in terms of public engagement, e.g., number of likes. Additionally, portions of the conversation included with the message are presented based on the current engagement information. For example, a portion of a top ranked conversation may be displayed with the message…line 35-the number of replies within a conversation thread can be a ranking criteria, e.g., conversations with more replies can be scored higher than those with few replies…line 52, Each conversation can be scored based on one or more of the ranking criteria. The conversations can be ranked based on the scores and a specified number of top ranked conversations can be presented in response to user selection of the message; column 12, line 46, Searching, a user can perform a search in one or more custom timelines. For example, the user interface presenting the custom timeline can also include a search field. The user can submit one or more query terms and search the messages of the custom timeline;)
Regarding claim 3, Shah in view of Primke discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Shah does not clearly disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute filtering relating to the search results based on the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data, and display the search result screen on the display unit.
However Primke discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute filtering relating to the search results based on the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data, and display the search result screen on the display unit. (Primke, Fig. 7C, e.g. “Posts”; Sort By item 715 “Most Likes”, item 716 “Most Comments”; [0063] the "posts" domain may include the following filters: posted/shared by (author; shared by); tagged with (media tag; with tag; mention); date posted; liked/commented on by ( commented on by; liked by); sort by (relevance; newest; oldest; likes; comments); location; post type; link URL; language; posted to (timeline; group; event) or other suitable filters; [0066], e.g. the first search-results page may further include an additional-filters element. The additional-filters element may be activatable to generate a user-interface including one or more query-filter elements of the first search-results page and one or more additional query-filter elements.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Shah with the teaching of Primke in order to provide the search results may be personalized for the querying user and the search results may also be ranked and presented to the user according to their relative degree of relevance to the user, (Primke, [0056]) and also allow a user to input a search query using a multi-step implementation and a graphical interface to select query domains and apply query filters, (Primke, [0007]) and also to allow a querying user to search for content that is connected to particular users or concepts in the social graph and can then select an appropriate query to search for the desired content, (Primke, [0059]).
Regarding claim 7, Shah in view of Primke discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Shah does not clearly disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive designation of any one of a plurality of search ranges; acquire, based on each of the plurality of search ranges, the search results for the each of the plurality of search ranges; and display, on the display unit, the search result screen that shows the search results corresponding to the one of the plurality of search ranges designated from among the plurality of search ranges.
However Primke discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive designation of any one of a plurality of search ranges; acquire, based on each of the plurality of search ranges, the search results for the each of the plurality of search ranges; and display, on the display unit, the search result screen that shows the search results corresponding to the one of the plurality of search ranges designated from among the plurality of search ranges. (Primke, Fig. 4; Fig. 6A, items 602 “people”, 603 “Photos”, 604 “Pages”, 605 “Posts” (corresponding to the “the plurality of search ranges”); [0064], e.g. FIG. 6A illustrates a query-initiation page 601. The query-initiation page 601 includes a query-field 350 and a plurality of query-domain elements 602-605. The "people" query-domain element 602, "photos" query-domain element 603, "pages" query-domain element 604, and "posts" quer ydomain element 605 are associated with the object-types "people" (also referred to as "users"), "photos", "pages", and "posts", respectively… For example, if the user types "John Smith photo" the social-networking system may suggest "Photos taken by John Smith", or "Photos tagged with John Smith"; [0007] The socialnetworking system may allow a user to input a search query using a multi-step implementation and a graphical interface to select query domains and apply query filters; [0056] The social networking system 160 may then generate a search-results page with search results corresponding to the identified content and send the search-results page to the user. The search results may be presented to the user)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Shah with the teaching of Primke in order to provide the search results may be personalized for the querying user and the search results may also be ranked and presented to the user according to their relative degree of relevance to the user, (Primke, [0056]) and also allow a user to input a search query using a multi-step implementation and a graphical interface to select query domains and apply query filters, (Primke, [0007]) and also to allow a querying user to search for content that is connected to particular users or concepts in the social graph and can then select an appropriate query to search for the desired content, (Primke, [0059]).
Regarding claim 8, Shah in view of Primke discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Shah does not clearly disclose: wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive, from among a plurality of search ranges, designation of at least one of: one of the plurality of search ranges to be set as a search target; or one of the plurality of search ranges to be excluded from search targets; identify, based on the designation, a final search range to be finally set as the search target; and display, on the display unit, the search result screen that shows the search results within the identified final search range.
However Primke discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive, from among a plurality of search ranges, designation of at least one of: one of the plurality of search ranges to be set as a search target; or one of the plurality of search ranges to be excluded from search targets; identify, based on the designation, a final search range to be finally set as the search target; and display, on the display unit, the search result screen that shows the search results within the identified final search range. (Primke, Fig. 4, News Feed, Close Friends, Messages, Groups ; Fig. 6A, items 602 “people”, 603 “Photos”, 604 “Pages”, 605 “Posts” (corresponding to the “the plurality of search ranges”); [0068], e.g. social-networking system 160 may receive a search query for </search/users/me/friends> (which is a query syntax used to search for users who are friends of the querying user (i.e., "me")) in response to the first user selecting the "People" query-domain and additionally selecting the "friends" query-filter. The social-networking device may identify user nodes 202 corresponding with user's "John Smith" and "Jane Doe", each of whom may be connected to the first user by a friend edge 206. The social networking system may send to the client device 13 0 a second search-results page including "John Smith" and "Jane Doe". Conversely, a user "John Doe" may have been connected the user by two degrees of freedom ( e.g., a friend of a friend); since "John Doe" is not connected to the user by a "friend" edge 206, "John Doe" will be excluded from the current search. In particular embodiments, the second search-results page may include one or more query-filter elements, each corresponding to a query-filter associated with the first query domain… the user can simply activate more query-filter elements to apply multiple query filters to a search query to further refine a search query.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Shah with the teaching of Primke in order to provide the search results may be personalized for the querying user and the search results may also be ranked and presented to the user according to their relative degree of relevance to the user, (Primke, [0056]) and also allow a user to input a search query using a multi-step implementation and a graphical interface to select query domains and apply query filters, (Primke, [0007]) and also to allow a querying user to search for content that is connected to particular users or concepts in the social graph and can then select an appropriate query to search for the desired content, (Primke, [0059]).
Regarding claim 9, Shah in view of Primke discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Claim 9 further recites: wherein the at least one processor is configured to display the search result screen on the display unit based on the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data (Shah, column 12, line 46, Searching, a user can perform a search in one or more custom timelines. For example, the user interface presenting the custom timeline can also include a search field. The user can submit one or more query terms and search the messages of the custom timeline; column 14, line 13- Threading of Conversations, The saved messages are not a static representation of the message. Instead, the custom timeline is used to dynamically maintain the context surrounding public engagement with the message…line 35-the number of replies within a conversation thread can be a ranking criteria, e.g., conversations with more replies can be scored higher than those with few replies ;)
and the number of users who are expected to react to the each of the plurality of pieces of data. (Shah, column 7, line 30-Thus, if a message is saved to a number of different user's custom timelines, this can be an extra indication of whether a message is trending in addition to user likes, replies, or reposts. Additionally, the types of messages saved by a user can be an indication of interests associated with the user account. For example, if a user saves a number of messages associated with cars, the system may associate the user with that interest. The interest can be used in determining recommended content for the user.… the number of times a particular message has been saved (i.e., selected for inclusion in the user-defined time line) is optionally tallied and inputted into a machine learning model to predict popularity, engagement, and interest.)
Regarding claim 11, Shah in view of Primke discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Claim 11 further recites: wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive each of a plurality of types of reactions; and acquire, based on a type of the reaction to each of the plurality of pieces of data, the number of reactions to the each of the plurality of pieces of data. (Shah, Fig. 3C; Column 10, line 10, A number of user interface elements 325 indicating particular user actions are displayed below the content of a message, for example, to comment on the message, rebroadcast or repost the message, or like theMessage; Column 14, line 23 , number of likes…line 35, the number of replies within a conversation thread; column 16, line 10- number of responses and/or reposts.)
Regarding claim 12, Shah in view of Primke discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Shah does not clearly disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to acquire the number of reactions based on an attribute relating to each of the plurality of users who has made the reaction to the each of the plurality of pieces of data.
However Primke discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to acquire the number of reactions based on an attribute relating to each of the plurality of users who has made the reaction to the each of the plurality of pieces of data. (Primke, Fig. 4; [0045], e.g. Social-networking system 160 may also store in the post vertical P2 information associated with a post object such as a time stamp, an author, privacy settings, users who like the post, a count of likes, comments, a count of comments, location, and so on; Fig. 3; Fig. 5A; Fig. 5B; [0032], e.g. if a user "likes" an article about a brand of shoes the category may be the brand, or the general category of "shoes" or "clothing." A connection store may be used for storing connection information about users. …The connection information may indicate users who have similar or common work experience, group memberships, hobbies, educational history, or are in any way related or share common attributes; [0060] a first user may want to search for other users who: (1) are first-degree friends of the first user; and (2) are associated with Stanford University (i.e., the user nodes 202 are connected by an edge 206 to the concept node 204 corresponding to the school "Stanford").)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Shah with the teaching of Primke in order to provide the search results may be personalized for the querying user and the search results may also be ranked and presented to the user according to their relative degree of relevance to the user, (Primke, [0056]) and also allow a user to input a search query using a multi-step implementation and a graphical interface to select query domains and apply query filters, (Primke, [0007]) and also to allow a querying user to search for content that is connected to particular users or concepts in the social graph and can then select an appropriate query to search for the desired content, (Primke, [0059]).
Regarding claim 15, Shah in view of Primke discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Claim 15 further recites: wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive a predetermined reaction notification from a user terminal indicating that a reaction has been made to a piece of data and update a reaction information associated with the piece of data in a task support database which is located on a server; (Shah, column 14, to dynamically maintain the context surrounding public engagement with the message. …line 22- the message statistics are current in terms of public engagement, e.g., number of likes ;column 5, line 23- one or more of the data repositories is a database and/or storage service residing on one or more servers)
and acquire the number of reactions when a condition relating to the number of reactions is designated as the specific criteria by referring to the task support database (Shah, column 2, line 6- monitoring engagements by one or more other accounts of the social messaging platform with the first message with respect to one or more notification criteria; and in response to determining that the monitored engagements satisfy a trigger condition for one or more of the notification criteria, providing a notification to the user account associated with the first message through the custom timeline; column 14, to dynamically maintain the context surrounding public engagement with the message. …line 22- the message statistics are current in terms of public engagement, e.g., number of likes ;) and aggregating the number of reactions to each of the plurality of pieces of data on the spot. (Shah, column 14, to dynamically maintain the context surrounding public engagement with the message. …line 22- the message statistics are current in terms of public engagement, e.g., number of likes ;column 5, line 23- one or more of the data repositories is a database and/or storage service residing on one or more servers)
Regarding claim 16, Shah in view of Primke discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Claim 16 further recites: wherein the search result screen depicts the number of reactions. (Shah, Fig. 3A; column 10, line 26- A number of user interface elements 335 indicating particular user actions are displayed below the content of a message, for example, to comment on the message, repeat the message, or like the message. In the example shown in FIG. 3D, the "like" element 337 represented by a heart can be held to present multiple options, in this case a like action or a bookmark action to save the message to a custom timeline.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (US 11552919 B1) in view of Primke (US 2016/0098493 Al) in view of Jackson (US20150363402A1)
Regarding claim 4, Shah in view of Primke discloses all of the features with respect to claim 3 as outlined above. Shah in view of Primke does not clearly disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine a threshold value relating to the filtering based on a group to which each of the plurality of users for which the search result screen is to be displayed on the display unit belongs; and execute the filtering based on the threshold value.
However Jackson discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine a threshold value relating to the filtering based on a group to which each of the plurality of users for which the search result screen is to be displayed on the display unit belongs; and execute the filtering based on the threshold value. (Jackson, [0004], [0006], e.g. An object may be filtered out from the set of identified objects if one or more of its scores are below one or more respective threshold scores; [0022] the items and objects may include groups or social networks to which users of social-networking system 160 may belong, events or calendar entries in which a user might be interested, computer-based applications that a user may use, transactions that allow users to buy or sell items via the service, interactions with advertisements that a user may perform, or other suitable items or objects ;[0005] each scoring axis may have a threshold score that is statistically determined for the scoring axis. A threshold score for a particular axis may be based on the mean of scores along the axis, a particular number of low-scoring objects, a particular percentage of low-scoring objects, or a step in scores along the axis. For example, a threshold score may be set at approximately two standard deviations below the mean of scores. As another example, a threshold score set at the 30th percentile of a set of 100 objects may have a value along a particular axis that is above the bottom 30 scores of the set and below the top 70 scores; )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Shah in view of Primke with the teaching of Jackson in order to enhance search quality by removing or filtering out low-scoring or low-quality objects from the set of objects, (Jackson, [0040])
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (US 11552919 B1) in view of Primke (US 2016/0098493 Al) in view of Graham (US20140164365A1)
Regarding claim 5, Shah in view of Primke discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Shah in view of Primke does not clearly disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: execute filtering so that, among the plurality of pieces of data, at least one of the plurality of pieces of data to which a specific one of the plurality of users has reacted remains; and display the search result screen on the display unit based on an execution result of the filtering.
However Graham discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: execute filtering so that, among the plurality of pieces of data, at least one of the plurality of pieces of data to which a specific one of the plurality of users has reacted remains; and display the search result screen on the display unit based on an execution result of the filtering. (Graham [0005] the social networking system filters news stories presented to a viewing user based on data about the viewing user's interests, actions associated with news stories or news sources, connections to other users, or any other suitable criteria …the social networking system filters the news stories to identify news stories associated with users connected to the viewing user. In another example, the social networking system filters news stories to identify news stories associated with content with which the user previously interacted. )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Shah in view of Primke with the teaching of Graham in order to allowing a viewing user to more easily identify contents of interest, (Graham, abstract) and also to improve user interaction with contents, (Graham, [0005]) .
Regarding claim 18, Shah in view of Primke in view of Graham discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Shah does not clearly disclose:
wherein the filtering is based on a type of reaction.
However Primke discloses:
wherein the filtering is based on a type of reaction.
(Primke, Fig. 7C, e.g. “Posts”; Sort By item 715 “Most Likes”, item 716 “Most Comments”; [0063] the "posts" domain may include the following filters: posted/shared by (author; shared by); tagged with (media tag; with tag; mention); date posted; liked/commented on by ( commented on by; liked by); sort by (relevance; newest; oldest; likes; comments); location; post type; link URL; language; posted to (timeline; group; event) or other suitable filters; [0066], e.g. the first search-results page may further include an additional-filters element. The additional-filters element may be activatable to generate a user-interface including one or more query-filter elements of the first search-results page and one or more additional query-filter elements.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Shah with the teaching of Primke in order to provide the search results may be personalized for the querying user and the search results may also be ranked and presented to the user according to their relative degree of relevance to the user, (Primke, [0056]) and also allow a user to input a search query using a multi-step implementation and a graphical interface to select query domains and apply query filters, (Primke, [0007]) and also to allow a querying user to search for content that is connected to particular users or concepts in the social graph and can then select an appropriate query to search for the desired content, (Primke, [0059]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (US 11552919 B1) in view of Primke (US 2016/0098493 Al) in view of Jamie
(https://jamiemaguire.net/index.php/2020/12/05/search-and-bulk-delete-tweets-with-2-mouse-clicks-with-social-opinion/, hereinafter “Jamie”)
Regarding claim 6, Shah in view of Primke discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Shah does not clearly disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive designation of any one of a plurality of search ranges;
However Primke discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive designation of any one of a plurality of search ranges; (Primke, Fig. 4; Fig. 6A, items 602 “people”, 603 “Photos”, 604 “Pages”, 605 “Posts” (corresponding to the “the plurality of search ranges”); [0064], e.g. FIG. 6A illustrates a query-initiation page 601. The query-initiation page 601 includes a query-field 350 and a plurality of query-domain elements 602-605. The "people" query-domain element 602, "photos" query-domain element 603, "pages" query-domain element 604, and "posts" quer ydomain element 605 are associated with the object-types "people" (also referred to as "users"), "photos", "pages", and "posts", respectively… For example, if the user types "John Smith photo" the social-networking system may suggest "Photos taken by John Smith", or "Photos tagged with John Smith"; [0007] The socialnetworking system may allow a user to input a search query using a multi-step implementation and a graphical interface to select query domains and apply query filters; [0056] The social networking system 160 may then generate a search-results page with search results corresponding to the identified content and send the search-results page to the user. The search results may be presented to the user)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Shah with the teaching of Primke in order to provide the search results may be personalized for the querying user and the search results may also be ranked and presented to the user according to their relative degree of relevance to the user, (Primke, [0056]) and also allow a user to input a search query using a multi-step implementation and a graphical interface to select query domains and apply query filters, (Primke, [0007]) and also to allow a querying user to search for content that is connected to particular users or concepts in the social graph and can then select an appropriate query to search for the desired content, (Primke, [0059]).
Shah in view of Primke does not clearly disclose:
classify, after the search results are acquired, the search results based on the one of the plurality of search ranges; and display, on the display unit, the search result screen that shows the classified search results based on the designated one of the plurality of search ranges.
However Jamie discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive designation of any one of a plurality of search ranges; classify, after the search results are acquired, the search results based on the one of the plurality of search ranges; and display, on the display unit, the search result screen that shows the classified search results based on the designated one of the plurality of search ranges. (Jamie
PNG
media_image3.png
366
816
media_image3.png
Greyscale
You can use the new fields to filter your tweets using the following criteria: Date From; Date To; Number of Replies; Number of Likes; Number of Impressions Here you can see me search for tweets that have received over 10,000 impressions from the 25/11/2020:
PNG
media_image4.png
324
753
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Shah in view of Primke with the teaching of Jamie in order to control over finding their popular or least popular content and also to review tweets they had sent within a particular date range, (Jamie, searching section).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (US 11552919 B1) in view of Primke (US 2016/0098493 Al) in view of RYUICHI (JP2014064058A)
Regarding claim 10, Shah in view of Primke discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Claim 10 further recites: wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive, as the reaction, a comment on each of the plurality of pieces of data; (Shah, column 10, line 10- A number of user interface elements 325 indicating particular user actions are displayed below the content of a message, for example, to comment on the message)
However Shah in view of Primke does not clearly disclose:
determine, when each of the plurality of users who has input the comment on each of the plurality of pieces of data has not made the reaction other than the comment to the each of the plurality of pieces of data, whether the comment contains a detail equivalent to the reaction other than the comment; and acquire the number of reactions based on a result of the determination.
However RYUICHI discloses:
determine, when each of the plurality of users who has input the comment on each of the plurality of pieces of data has not made the reaction other than the comment to the each of the plurality of pieces of data, whether the comment contains a detail equivalent to the reaction other than the comment; and acquire the number of reactions based on a result of the determination. (RYUICHI , page 3, third paragraph- Furthermore, the information processing system according to the present invention is the information processing system according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the predetermined condition includes a total number of reaction comments and response comments for a specific channel, and reaction comments for the specific channel; Page 3, 5th paragraph- A step of classifying, a step of determining the presence or absence of a broadcasting station satisfying a predetermined condition in a predetermined time zone, wherein the number of reaction comments and response comments classified by the classifying step is determined by the predetermined step. And a step of inquiring whether or not to record the program of the broadcast station when it is determined that there is a broadcast station that satisfies the predetermined condition in the time zone.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Shah in view of Primke with the teaching of RYUICHI to provide an information processing system capable of obtaining a public interest in the program and recording a program that is truly interested in the program, (RYUICHI, page 2, 8th paragraph ) and also comments about a plurality of programs broadcast at the same time are obtained and the degree of attention for each of the plurality of programs calculated based on the number of comments is provided during the time when the program is broadcast, (RYUICHI, page 2, 6th paragraph ).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (US 11552919 B1) in view of Primke (US 2016/0098493 Al) in view of Ryan (US10540061B2)
Regarding claim 17, Shah in view of Primke discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Claim 17 further recites: wherein the display includes a posted-date, a posting-user identifier, for each of the pieces of data.
(Shah, FIG. 3A, item “12m” (corresponding to a “a posted-date”), Simon@thesimon$ (corresponding to a “a posting-user identifier”),
However Shah in view of Primke does not clearly disclose:
and a posting range
However Ryan discloses:
and a posting range (Ryan, Fig. 1; column 16, line 31- The event categories displayed in column 554 may correspond to event icons displayed in the timeline interface 502. As a further example, column 556 contains a date or date range associated with the event)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Shah in view of Primke with the teaching of Ryan in order to provide improved human-computer interactions that may provide reduced mental workloads, improved decision-making, reduced work stress, and/or the like, for a user, (Ryan, [0056])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Faezeh Forouharnejad whose telephone number is (571)270-7416. The examiner can normally be reached on generally Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shah Sanjiv can be reached on (571)272-4098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)
/F.F. /
Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights