FINAL ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in responsive to communication(s):
Amendment filed on 12/8/2025.
Application filed on 8/1/2023 with effective filing date of 11/3/2022 based on foreign application priority KR10-2022-0145257.
The status of the claims is summarized as below:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 10, and 14 are independent claims.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-16, 18 are amended.
The objection to specification is respectfully withdrawn in light of the specification filed on 12/8/2025.
The previous claim objections to claims 1-4, 8, 10, 14-16 are respectfully withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
The claim interpretations to claim 14 based on 35 USC § 112(f) are respectfully maintained.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the amendment made to claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8, 10-16, 18 in the amendment filed on 12/8/2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are mostly directed to newly amended language which is now rejected in light of Kuznetsov.
The applicant argued on page 12-13 for claim 10 that Matsuo does not teach “providing a comment interface including a preset initial gaze effect among preset gaze effects of gazing a comment of a comment user”, specifically, Matsuo does not disclose the claimed “gaze effect” of “gazing a comment of a comment user”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Matsuo ([0081-0085]) teaches a preset background color of white to black (0%-100%), where the color changes based on the content of the comment the user is entering (gaze effect). While the user inputs the comment as shown in Fig. 6-7, as the number of negative keywords in the user input increases, the background color is changed to darker shade of gray in real time, in effect, indicating the “gaze effect” of “gazing the comment of a comment user”, where the background color reflects the “gaze effect” or the current state of the comment based on negative/affirmative words from the inputted comment in real time. Accordingly, Matsuo teaches “providing a comment interface including a preset initial gaze effect among preset gaze effects of gazing a comment of a comment user”.
The examiner notes all emphasis in sections below are added by the examiner.
Specification
The specification and drawing filed on 12/8/2025 has been considered and approved by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections to claims 1-4, 8, 10, 14-16 are respectfully withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Per claim 1, claim 1 recites a method that “… wherein the gaze effect is determined based on an impact score determined by a relationship, included in the comment history information, between a main keyword of the comment and the gaze effect, wherein the impact score is determined by applying weight, indicating impact on the comment by the gaze effect over time, to the impact score”. The examiner notes “the comment” included in the limitation above refers to the previous limitation “… acquiring comment history information of a comment user who wants to enter a comment …”, where the comment is currently being inputted or about to be inputted by the user. Based on this inference, the examiner is unable to find support for an impact score determined by a relationship between a main keyword of a current comment inputted by a user and the gaze effect, and where the impact score is further determined by applying weight based on the impact on the current comment the user is inputting. The filed specification, however, recites in paragraphs ¶0058 and ¶0081:
[0058] Herein, at step S120, a score of the comment user may be calculated using data in the comment history information, and a gaze effect of the comment user may be determined by determining, according to the calculated score, whether the comment user is a negative comment user, a neutral comment user, or a positive comment user. According to an embodiment, at step S120, an impact score of a gaze effect on a comment of the comment user may be analyzed through a relationship between a main keyword of each comment included in the comment history information and the gaze effect, a final impact score may be calculated by applying a weight to the impact score over time, it may be determined thus whether the comment user is a negative comment user, a neutral comment user, or a positive comment user, and thus the gaze effect of the comment user may be determined.
[0081]According to an embodiment, the determination unit 820 may analyze an impact score of a gaze effect on a comment of the comment user through a relationship between a main keyword of each comment included in the comment history information and the gaze effect, calculate a final impact score by applying a weight to the impact score over time, determine thus whether the comment user is a negative comment user, a neutral comment user, or a positive comment user, and thus determine the gaze effect of the comment user .
As shown above, the impact score is only calculated to help to determine an (initial) gaze effect for a specific comment user. Thus, there is only support for determining an impact score based on a relationship between a main keyword of each comment included in the comment history information and the gaze effect, but not between the comment (the user is currently inputting) and the gaze effect as claimed by limitations of claim 1. Similarly, there is no support for applying weight to indicate impact on the (current) comment the user is inputting by the gaze effect over time, rather the recited paragraphs shows support only for the applying weight to the impact score for each comment included in the comment history information over time, to reach a final impact score.
Claim 14 recite similar limitations as claim 1 above, and are likewise rejected as failing to comply with written description requirement.
Per claim 10, claim 10 recites “… changing the preset initial gaze effect to a gaze effect corresponding to the comment content in real time, wherein the gaze effect is determined based on an impact score determined by a relationship, included in the comment history information, between a main keyword of the comment content and the gaze effect, wherein the impact score is determined by applying weight, indicating impact on the comment by the gaze effect over time, to the impact score”. Again, similar to the rejection for claim 1 above, there is no support for determination of an impact score that is based on currently inputted comment content, rather impact score is only calculated from the comment history information for a specific comment user to determine initial gaze effect for the user. Additionally, the limitation further recites that after the preset initial gaze effect has been changed to a (new) gaze effect based on the current inputted comment content to in real time, the (new) gaze effect is further determined based on an impact score. There is no support for the new gaze effect which has been set based on user inputted comment content in real time, to be further determined based on an impact score. The recited paragraphs above shows the impact score is only calculated to determine an initial gaze effect for a specific comment user based on the comment history information (filed specification paragraphs ¶0058 and ¶0081).
Claims 2-9, 11-13, and 15-20 depend from claim 1, 10, and 14 respectively, and are likewise rejected as failing to comply with written description requirement.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Per claim 1, claim 1 recites “… wherein the gaze effect is determined based on an impact score determined by a relationship, included in the comment history information, between a main keyword of the comment and the gaze effect, wherein the impact score is determined by applying weight, indicating impact on the comment by the gaze effect over time, to the impact score”. The filed specification (¶0058, ¶0081) describes the impact score being determined by a relationship between a main keyword of each comment in the comment history information and the gaze effect, not the comment the user is currently inputting and the gaze effect. There is an inconsistency/conflict between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure. (MPEP 2173.03).
MPEP 2173.03 states that “a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty”.
For the purpose of examination, the recited limitations in claim 1 are interpreted as “… wherein the gaze effect is determined based on an impact score determined by a relationship, included in the comment history information, between a main keyword of each comment included in the comment history information and the gaze effect, wherein the impact score is determined by applying weight, indicating impact on each comment included in the comment history information by the gaze effect over time, to the impact score”.
Claim 14 recite similar limitations as claim 1, and are likewise rejected as being indefinite, and similarly interpreted as claim 1 above.
Per claim 10, claim 10 recites “… changing the preset initial gaze effect to a gaze effect corresponding to the comment content in real time, wherein the gaze effect is determined based on an impact score determined by a relationship, included in the comment history information, between a main keyword of the comment content and the gaze effect, wherein the impact score is determined by applying weight, indicating impact on the comment by the gaze effect over time, to the impact score”. The filed specification (¶0058, ¶0081) describes the impact score as being determined by a relationship between a main keyword of each comment in the comment history information and the gaze effect, not the comment the user is currently inputting and the gaze effect. The specification further does not disclose the real time gaze effect, which is being set through extraction of keywords inputted by a user, is further determined based on an impact score. The specification only describes the impact score being calculated using the comment history information to determine a score for a comment user, where the score is further used to set initial gaze effect in a comment interface for entering a comment from the specific user. There is an inconsistency/conflict between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure. (MPEP 2173.03).
For the purpose of examination, the recited limitations in claim 10 are interpreted as “…changing the preset initial gaze effect to a gaze effect corresponding to the comment content in real time, wherein the gaze effect is determined based on an impact score determined by a relationship, included in the comment history information, between a main keyword of each comment included in the comment history information and the gaze effect, wherein the impact score is determined by applying weight, indicating impact on each comment included in the comment history information by the gaze effect over time, to the impact score”, and the bolded “the gaze effect” is interpreted as either the preset initial gaze or the gaze effect.
Claims 1-9, 11-13, and 15-20 depend from claims 1, 10, and 14 respectively, and are likewise rejected as indefinite.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an acquisition unit configured to acquire … “,
“a determination unit configured to determine …”,
“a provision unit configured to provide …” in claim 14 (and therefore, any claim that depends therefrom).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations: Applicants describe the apparatus as being the device 1600 in Fig. 9 (paragraphs [0090-0099], as filed specification). Therefore there is sufficient corresponding structure in the form of a device comprising hardware structures such as memory and processor.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heppe et al. (US Pub 20170195125, hereinafter Heppe), in view of Kuznetsov (US Pub 20180113863, hereinafter Kuznetsov).
Per claim 1, Heppe teaches: ([0022] method to encourage users to make high quality posts and to moderate discussion to provide high quality discourse for host sites);
A method for providing a comment interface, the method comprising:
acquiring comment history information of a comment user who wants to enter a comment, based on user information of the comment user; ([0016, 0081-0082, 0100] Fig. 1 shows a method for assigning an initial score to a comment based on its content (step 300) and user credentials (step 450), where user credential is partly based on historical data on scores of past user comments (step 420); so user history information was acquired to make a determination of posteriori score for the user comment in step 450 );
determining a gaze effect of gazing a comment of the comment user among preset gaze effects based on the comment history information; and ([0016, 0081-0082, 0094-0095, 0100] Fig. 1: an initial posteriori score (gaze effect) for the user’s comment is generated within an available range (preset gaze effects), and partly based on historical data on posteriori scores of past comments);
providing the comment interface including the determined gaze effect to the comment user, … . ([0107] Fig. 1: at step 500, the new comment/post is posted for public viewing along with its posteriori score as determined at step 450).
Although Heppe teaches determining a posteriori score (gaze effect) of a user comment based on historical data from the user, Heppe does not explicitly teach how the score is calculated based on the history data: “wherein the gaze effect is determined based on an impact score determined by a relationship, included in the comment history information, between a main keyword of the comment and the gaze effect, wherein the impact score is determined by applying weight, indicating impact on the comment by the gaze effect over time, to the impact score”.
However, Kuznetsov teaches calculating a sentiment score for an item of media content ([0073]):
… wherein the gaze effect is determined based on an impact score determined by a relationship, included in the comment history information, between a main keyword of the comment and the gaze effect, ([0072-0074],): the sentiment profile engine 312 in Fig. 3 generates individual sentiment scores (impact score) for each comment, the individual sentiment scores are then weighted and aggregated based on historic information of the comment user to produce an aggregated sentiment scores (gaze effect) representing the sentiments expressed about an item of media content; [0065, 0069] where sentiment of a comment is associated with specific word included in the comment, i.e. “hilarious” could be labeled with sentiment type “humorous”);
wherein the impact score is determined by applying weight, indicating impact on the comment by the gaze effect over time, to the impact score. ([0073-0075] the individual sentiment scores are weighted based on the comment user or based on the number of agreements or disagreements for the comment over the time of the comment history, which is then aggregated to produce the aggregated sentiment score);
Kuznetsov and Heppe are analogous art because Kuznetsov also teach method of evaluation of user entered comments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Heppe and Kuznetsov before him/her, to modify the teachings of Heppe to include the teachings of Kuznetsov so that the gaze effect/impact score can be evaluated from comment history and based on an aggregation of individual comment scores that are weighted. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would help users to identify the sentiments of specific entity such as a media item based on an aggregation of its comment history, providing a quick way to assess the overall sentiment or opinion regarding a particular media content without requiring the user to read all of the comments ([0004]), and also enabling a quick evaluation of a comment user based on all of his/her comment history.
Per claim 2, Heppe-Kuznetsov teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the determining determines the gaze effect of gazing the comment of the comment user by reflecting statistical information on each of gaze effects of the comment history information. (Heppe [0100] to determine the current posteriori score, historical data on priori scores of past comments are supplied at step 420 to play a role in making the determination).
Per claim 3, Heppe-Kuznetsov teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the comment history information includes at least one of comments of the comment user, the gaze effect of each of the comments, news or an article associated with each of the comments, a number of views for each of the comments, a number of likes for each of the comments, a number of dislikes for each of the comments, and a number of reports for each of the comments. (Heppe [0100] historical data includes priori scores from past comments from the user).
Per claim 4, Heppe-Kuznetsov teach all the limitations of claim 3, and further teach:
wherein the determining determines a first gaze effect, which is set to tempt from a negatively-oriented comment to a positively-oriented comment, among the gaze effects, based on the number of dislikes being equal to or greater than a first reference number, the number of reports being a second reference number, or the comment user being included in a blacklist. (Heppe [0063-0064, 0115-0117] a add-in module could include a white and black lists to store credible sources of sites to help to generate author argumentation quality).
Per claim 5, Heppe-Kuznetsov teach all the limitations of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the determining determines the gaze effect of the comment user by reflecting a comment keyword and a gaze effect of another comment user who enters a comment on news or an article on which the comment user wants to enter a comment. (Heppe [0067] Fig. 1: the priori score of a comment is determined based on the content of the comment itself such as spelling/vulgarity from certain words (keyword), and content analyses of the subject item and other comments from other users on the same subject item).
Per claim 14, claim 14 is a system claim that include limitations that are substantially the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
Per claim 15-17, claims 15-17 include limitations that are substantially the same as claim 2-3, 5 respectively, and are likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo Dai (WO 2017144968, hereinafter Matsuo), in view of Kuznetsov.
Per claim 10, Matsuo teaches:
A method for providing a comment interface, the method comprising:
providing a comment interface including a preset initial gaze effect among preset gaze effects of gazing a comment of a comment user; ([0081-0085] Fig. 5 shows a comment input screen with a preset white background (initial gaze effect) of a comment from a user; [0064-0068] Fig. 4B: the background color has a preset effects (preset gaze effects) of from white to black (0%-100%));
extracting a comment content of the comment user through the comment interface; ([0061-0067] Fig. 4A shows at step 43-45, keyword in the user input is extracted to determine the number of negative keywords) and
changing the preset initial gaze effect to a gaze effect corresponding to the comment content in real time, … . ([0061-0067, 0081-0085] Fig. 4: Fig. 6-7 show that as the number of negative keywords found in the user input increases, the background color is changed to darker shade of gray in real time, until it completely blacks out in Fig. 8).
Although Matsuo teaches changing gaze effect in real time based on the extracted comment content, Matsuo does not explicitly teach the gaze effect is determined based on comment history information: “wherein the gaze effect is determined based on an impact score determined by a relationship, included in the comment history information, between a main keyword of the comment and the gaze effect, wherein the impact score is determined by applying weight, indicating impact on the comment by the gaze effect over time, to the impact score”.
However, Kuznetsov teaches calculating a sentiment score for an item of media content based on comment history ([0073]):
… wherein the gaze effect is determined based on an impact score determined by a relationship, included in the comment history information, between a main keyword of the comment and the gaze effect, ([0072-0074],): the sentiment profile engine 312 in Fig. 3 generates individual sentiment scores (impact score) for each comment, the individual sentiment scores are then weighted and aggregated based on historic information of the comment user to produce an aggregated sentiment scores (gaze effect) representing the sentiments expressed about an item of media content; [0065, 0069] where sentiment of a comment is associated with specific word included in the comment, i.e. “hilarious” could be labeled with sentiment type “humorous”);
wherein the impact score is determined by applying weight, indicating impact on the comment by the gaze effect over time, to the impact score. ([0073-0075] the individual sentiment scores are weighted based on the comment user or based on the number of agreements or disagreements for the comment, which is then aggregated to produce the aggregated sentiment score);
Kuznetsov and Matsuo are analogous art because Kuznetsov also teach method of evaluation of user entered comments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Matsuo and Kuznetsov before him/her, to modify the teachings of Matsuo to include the teachings of Kuznetsov so that the gaze effect/impact score can be evaluated from comment history and based on an aggregation of individual comment scores that are weighted. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would help to identify the sentiments of specific entity such as a media item based on an aggregation of its comment history, providing a quick way to assess the overall sentiment or opinion regarding a particular media content or any entity that the comment is associated with without requiring the user to read all of the comments ([0004]), and also enabling a quick evaluation of the entity the comment is associated with, such as a restaurant, based on all of its comment history.
Per claim 12, Matsuo-Kuznetsov teach all the limitations of claim 10, and further teach:
wherein the changing changes in real time the initial gaze effect to a gaze effect corresponding to a main keyword of the comment content and statistical information according to the main keyword. (Matsuo [0061-0067] the background color of the comment input field is changed in real time based on extracted keywords from user input, where keyword counts and weights are used as part of the evaluation; [0053-0056] keyword information include both affirmative and negative keywords where weight may be set for each keyword, and new keywords extracted from new comments).
Claim(s) 6-7, 11, 13, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Heppe, in view of Kuznetsov, and Matsuo.
Per claim 6, Heppe-Kuznetsov teach all the limitations of claim 1, but they do not explicitly teach extracting in real time keyword and changing the gaze effect in reflection in real time: “further comprising extracting in real time the main keyword of the comment entered through the comment interface and changing the gaze effect in real time by reflecting the main keyword”.
However, Matsuo teaches:
further comprising extracting in real time the main keyword of the comment entered through the comment interface and changing the gaze effect in real time by reflecting the main keyword. ([0081-0085] Fig. 6 shows when the user inputs comment in real time, and two negative keywords are detected, the background color (gaze effect) of the comment field is changed to light gray, Fig. 7 shows as more negative words are detected, the background color of the comment field is further changed to dark gray).
Matsuo and Heppe-Kuznetsov are analogous art because Matsuo also teaches method of evaluation of user entered comments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Heppe-Kuznetsov and Matsuo before him/her, to modify the teachings of Heppe-Kuznetsov to include the teachings of Matsuo so that the gaze effect/scores of the current comment can be adjusted in real time to reflect user text inputs. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide better real-time feedback to the user about the quality of the user inputs, so that the user can adjust accordingly, and improving quality of the comments from users.
Per claim 7, Heppe-Kuznetsov-Matsuo teach all the limitations of claim 6, and further teach:
wherein the changing changes at least one of a shape, a color, and a size of the gaze effect in real time by reflecting the main keyword. (Matsuo [0081-0085] the background color of the comment field is changed based on the detected negative keywords).
Per claim 18-19, claims 18-19 include limitations that are substantially the same as claim 6-7 respectively, and are likewise rejected.
Per claim 11, Matsuo-Kuznetsov teach all the limitations of claim 10, but they do not explicitly teach “wherein the providing of the comment interface comprises: acquiring comment history information of the comment user based on user information of the comment user; determining the preset initial gaze effect among the gaze effects based on the comment history information; and providing the comment interface including the determined preset initial gaze effect”.
However, Heppe teaches:
wherein the providing of the comment interface comprises:
acquiring comment history information of the comment user based on user information of the comment user; ([0016, 0081-0082, 0100] Fig. 1 shows a method for assigning an initial score to a comment based on its content (step 300) and user credentials (step 450), where user credential is partly based on historical data on scores of past user comments (step 420); so user history information was acquired to make a determination of posteriori score for the user comment in step 450 );
determining the preset initial gaze effect among the gaze effects based on the comment history information; and ([0016, 0081-0082, 0094-0095, 0100] Fig. 1: an initial posteriori score (gaze effect) for the user’s comment is generated within an available range (preset gaze effects), and partly based on historical data on posteriori scores of past comments);
providing the comment interface including the determined preset initial gaze effect. ([0107] Fig. 1: at step 500, the new comment/post is posted for public viewing along with its posteriori score as determined at step 450).
Heppe and Matsuo-Kuznetsov are analogous art because Heppe also teaches method of user comments evaluations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Matsuo-Kuznetsov and Heppe before him/her, to modify the teachings of Matsuo-Kuznetsov to include the teachings of Heppe so that the evaluation of the comments can also include other factors such as historical data of the user and other content analysis. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide a more comprehensive score for the user which is not only based on the content of the current comment, but also historical data and user reputation, etc., which would provide a better way to encourage user to enter high quality comments (Heppe [0022]).
Per claim 13, Matsuo-Kuznetsov teach all the limitations of claim 10, and Matsuo further teaches changing an effect in real time (Fig. 6-8), but they do not explicitly teach “wherein the extracting additionally extracts a main content of news or an article on which a comment is to be entered, and the changing changes in real time the preset initial gaze effect to the gaze effect corresponding to the comment content and the main content”.
However, Heppe teaches:
wherein the extracting additionally extracts a main content of news or an article on which a comment is to be entered, and the changing changes ([0067] Fig. 1: the priori score of a comment is determined based on the content of the comment itself such as spelling/vulgarity, and content analyses of the subject news item where relevance and keyword matching scores are used in step 230).
Heppe and Matsuo-Kuznetsov are analogous art because Heppe also teaches method of user comments evaluations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Matsuo-Kuznetsov and Heppe before him/her, to modify the teachings of Matsuo-Kuznetsov to include the teachings of Heppe so that the evaluation of the comments can also include other factors such as historical data of the user and other content analysis. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide a more comprehensive score for the user which is not only based on the content of the current comment, but also historical data of user and contents where comments are made, which would provide a better way to encourage user to enter high quality comments (Heppe [0022]).
Per claim 20, Heppe-Kuznetsov-Matsuo teach all the limitations of claim 18, and further teaches:
wherein the provision unit extracts a main content of news or an article, on which the comment user wants to enter a comment, and changes the gaze effect in real time by additionally reflecting the main content. (Heppe [0067] Fig. 1: the priori score of a comment is determined based on the content of the comment itself such as spelling/vulgarity, and content analyses of the subject news item where relevance and keyword matching scores are used in step 230; Matsuo [0081-0085] background colors in Fig. 6-8 are changed in real time as user enter comment).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Heppe, in view of Kuznetsov, and Shekel (US Pub 20170041263, hereinafter Shekel).
Per claim 8, Heppe-Kuznetsov teach all the limitations of claim 1, but they do not explicitly teach “further comprising providing comment history information of a first comment user whom the comment user follows, when a first comment made by the first comment user is selected by the comment user”.
However, Shekel teaches:
further comprising providing comment history information of a first comment user whom the comment user follows, when a first comment made by the first comment user is selected by the comment user. ([0082] Fig. 7: selecting the row of a particular user with comment such as user 2 may present additional information about that user such as history, any penalties for using restricted terms, and the likes).
Shekel and Heppe-Kuznetsov are analogous art because Shekel also teaches method of evaluation of user entered message. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Heppe-Kuznetsov and Shekel before him/her, to modify the teachings of Heppe-Kuznetsov to include the teachings of Shekel so that other user’s history can be presented when selected. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enable users to check on the history information of other users by selecting their comment, to gain more insight information of the other users who are posting comments.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Heppe, in view of Kuznetsov, and Olsen et al. (US Pub 20170220535, hereinafter Olsen).
Per claim 9, Heppe-Kuznetsov teach all the limitations of claim 1, but they do not explicitly teach “wherein the gaze effect includes a watching-eye cue”.
However, Olsen teaches:
wherein the gaze effect includes a watching-eye cue. ([0084] Fig. 8 shows a watch eye cue for view metrics).
Olsen and Heppe-Kuznetsov are analogous art because Olsen also teaches method of evaluation of user entered contents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Heppe-Kuznetsov and Olsen before him/her, to modify the teachings of Heppe-Kuznetsov to include the teachings of Olsen so that the gaze effect/scores of the current comment can be represented by eye icon. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide a better visual indicator to help users to understand the meaning of the scores displays on the comment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US Patents & Publications
US 20200081965 A1
WATERS; EMMA JANE et al.
Non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing program for presenting sentiment indicator with entered text, includes instructions for showing feedback request on screen for confirmation of or reason for submission request.
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support by shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections, See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHOEBE X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/PHOEBE X PAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179