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 arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all pending claims have been fully considered, but moot because of the new ground of rejection. Claim 8 was cancelled. Applicant argues that cited references failed to disclose wherein at least some of the content corresponding to a user identified based on the first information is blocked based on the second information and the third information.
However, Ahn et al disclose a system being capable of providing options to block distribution of video contents based on detection of abusive users and other parameters as detecting hateful contents; a sexual content, nudity, illegal activity, criminal activity, violent activity, abusive activity as disclosed in para. 0114; 0104; 0074;0071. This action is made final.
Claims rejections-35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim(s) 1-7; 9-10; 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorn(US.Pub.No.20210402304) in view of Thomas(US.Pub.No.20210370188) and Ahn(US.Pub.No.20220303621).
Regarding claim 1, Dorn et al disclose a method for detecting abusing video information in an electronic device, the method comprising: obtaining first information associated with a user participating in a broadcast( the system can access account information associated with a user; 0144) and second information associated with a content of the broadcast(games titles being appropriate to users; 0144-0145);
determining, based on the second information and a first list of one or more types of abuse, third information(the system can apply rules or conditions for accessing contents; 0123; weapons; 0061; chat harassement;0050) about whether the second information corresponds to one of the one or more types of abuse(the system is able to identify inappropriate or abuse actions; 0042; 0050-0051);
providing, based on the third information, a service server involved in provision of the broadcast with the first information, the second information and the third information(the system allows players to engage in game play of video game; 0057; 0144).
But did not explicitly disclose providing, based on the third information, a verification server associated with user sanctions with the first information and the second information; wherein at least some of the content corresponding to a user identified based on the first information is blocked based on the second information and the third information.
However, Thomas et al disclose providing, based on the third information, a verification server(see fig.1 with Host application server 118 for monitoring inappropriate behavior and offensive language related to users or players;0038;0004 ); associated with user sanctions with the first information and the second information(the system can apply sanction or penalty as ban or suspend users or players for toxic behavior; abstract; 0001-0002; 00004;0019; 0026).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Thomas to modify Dorn by proving options to filter offensive language for purpose of monitoring inappropriate and toxic behavior accordingly.
And Ahn et al disclose wherein at least some of the content corresponding to a user identified based on the first information is blocked based on the second information and the third information(the system is able to provide options to block distribution of video contents based on detection of abusive users; 0114; 0104; 0074;0071).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ahn to modify Dorn and Thomas by proving options to block distribution of video contents associated with abusive users for purpose of managing distribution of objectionable video contents across the network accordingly.
Regarding claim 2, Dorn et al disclose wherein the second information comprises one or more of video information or text information received from the user(game title; 0142; contextual information and description of events; 0085).
Regarding claim 3, Dorn et al disclose wherein the second information comprises image information(frame rates;0004 corresponding to a frame obtained by sampling the video information based on a specified first cycle(the system is able to determine period or duration or cycle associated with a gaming interaction; 0090;0135;0004).
Regarding claim 4, Dorn et al disclose wherein the third information comprises: type information about the one or more types of abuse(0050); and one or more of information about whether the second information corresponds to a first type of abuse which is included in the type information and is subject to blocking(for severe abuse, the system associated with user can be disabled or turned off for a long period of time and users can be banned or blocked permanently; 0101;0098), or information about whether the second information corresponds to a second type of abuse which is included in the type information and is subject to reporting(the system can just assign warning to users for less severe abuse or just send report or notification; 0051; reports the abusive behavior,0101;0088).
Regarding claim 5, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Dorn and Ahn et al did not explicitly disclose wherein the first list comprises a first threshold for determining whether information is subject to blocking and a second threshold for determining whether information is subject to reporting, and the determining the third information comprises: determining, based on the first threshold, whether the second information is subject to blocking; and determining, based on the second threshold, whether the second information is subject to reporting.
However, Thomas et al disclose wherein the first list comprises a first threshold for determining whether information is subject to blocking and a second threshold for determining whether information is subject to reporting, and the determining the third information comprises: determining, based on the first threshold, whether the second information is subject to blocking; and determining, based on the second threshold, whether the second information is subject to reporting(the system is able to use threshold values related to certain level of abuse or offensive language and sanctions can be applied accordingly; 0015; 0036; 00002 ).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Thomas to modify Dorn by proving options to filter offensive language for purpose of monitoring inappropriate and toxic behavior accordingly.
Regarding claim 7, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, Dorn and Ahn et al did not explicitly disclose wherein information about whether the second information is subject to sanctions, is determined based on the second information and a second list including one or more types of abuse, and the information about whether the second information is subject to sanctions is provided to the service server.
However, Thomas et al disclose wherein information about whether the second information is subject to sanctions, is determined based on the second information and a second list including one or more types of abuse, and the information about whether the second information is subject to sanctions is provided to the service server(the system is able to apply sanctions to users or players based on the level of offensive behavior or language; abstract; 0001-0002).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Thomas to modify Dorn and Ahn by proving options to filter offensive language for purpose of monitoring inappropriate and toxic behavior accordingly.
Regarding claim 10, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 6.
Regarding claim 12, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Dorn et al disclose wherein the second information comprises video information received from the user(the system is able to receive data from user inputs; 0080;0065).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorn(US.Pub.No.20210402304) in view of Thomas(US.Pub.No.20210370188) and Ahn (US.Pub.No.20223621) and Guo(US.Pub.No.20170134406).
Regarding claim 11, Dorn and Thomas and Ahn et al did not explicitly disclose wherein providing the service server with the first information, the second information and the third information comprises providing an intermediary server that mediates data between the electronic device and the service server with the first information, the second information and the third information.
However, Guo et al disclose wherein providing the service server with the first information, the second information and the third information comprises providing an intermediary server that mediates data between the electronic device and the service server with the first information, the second information and the third information(see fig.4 and fig.5 for providing suspicious content with specific information to a third-party service to make a final decision related to unsafe content or abuse; 0017;0036-0037;0006).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Guo to modify Dorn and Thomas and Ahn by using a third-party service for purpose of negotiating sanctions to be applied accordingly.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JEAN D SAINT CYR whose telephone number is (571)270-3224. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 5712727527. 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.
/JEAN D SAINT CYR/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
/Brian T Pendleton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2425