DETAILED ACTION
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
1. Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pgs. 12-13 of the Remarks that (i) the claims are not performable by the human mind and thus do not recite judicial exceptions (see pg. 13, para. 1-3) and that (ii) the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application as they reflect an improvement to a technology (see pgs. 12, para. 1-3). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with both arguments.
Regarding the arguments that the claims do not recite a judicial exception as they cannot be performed mentally, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as they are currently written recite mental processes with can be performed with the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, a person can watch a conversation and write down words that they hear and can then analyze the words to detect if any of them are toxic (e.g. profanity, hate speech). Further, a person can write down a score (e.g. a number 1-10, 10 being most toxic), and can adjust a raw score to get an adjusted score based on context (e.g. level of friendship between two speakers). A person can additionally correlate the adjusted score with a first event (e.g. determine that profanity was spoken at a first time) and can use this information to predict a second event as toxic (e.g. decide that the second person’s speech is retaliatory). Finally, a person may write down a response based on the toxic event (e.g. give a written warning to the user using profanity). Therefore, claim 1 recites mental processes under Step 2A Prong 1 analysis.
The Examiner further disagrees with the argument that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 analysis. Under Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements are viewed in combination to determine if the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The only additional limitations for the independent claims amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer (e.g., “memory”, “processor”, “optical character recognition (OCR)”, “generated by machine learning”). Even when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they do not provide any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to abstract ideas.
Hence, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
2. Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, Applicant’s arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues on pgs. 15-16 of the Remarks that “Huffman fails to teach or otherwise disclose a correlation step, much less predicting a toxic event based on the correlation…”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Huffman teaches this concept as it is currently recited in the independent claims. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the “correlating” step is being interpreted to mean any form of drawing a connection between a particular score and a particular event, and an “event” is being interpreted to mean any singular thing which happens during the discussion (e.g. a particular speech spoken, a particular action taken by user, etc.). Huffman teaches in Fig. 5 that particular events (one row of the table) are displayed with corresponding scores (‘Score’ Column), which reads on the BRI of the “correlating the adjusted first user toxicity score to the first event” step. Furthermore, Huffman teaches predicting a toxic event based on the correlation, as Huffman teaches that analyzing a particular event incorporates a user’s previous toxicity history (see para. 0049), which reads on the BRI of the “predicting a second event based on the correlation” step.
Hence Applicant’s arguments are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the arguments that Huffman does not disclose “generating a response to prevent the toxic event configured to be performed by an avatar”, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in this argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
3. Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “said notifying” and "said human moderator" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim, as intervening claim 10 has been amended to remove the limitation reciting “notifying a human moderator”.
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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, “A system” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (machine) (Step 1: Yes). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes which fall into the category of abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1: YES).
The following limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes which can be performed by a person with the aid of pen and paper:
detecting a discussion between a first user and a second user, wherein detecting comprises…video content comprising the discussion to convert the discussion into machine-encoded text: a person watches a video discussion between a first and second user, and writes down the words they hear.
analyzing said discussion for one or more toxicity indicators comprising a context, wherein analyzing comprises correlating the one or more toxicity indicators with a first event in a virtual environment: a person listens to the discussion and notices to see if there are one or more toxicity indicators (e.g. profanity, hate speech, etc.) and accounts for context of the discussion (e.g. age of speakers), and correlates toxic indicators with a first event (e.g. notices a first event of a speaker using profanity to a second speaker)
calculating a first user toxicity score based on said one or more toxicity indicators and adjusting the first toxicity score based on the context: a person writes down a first user toxicity score on pen and paper representing the one or more toxicity indicators (e.g. a number based on the severity of the profanity), and adjusts based on the context (e.g. lowers the toxicity score if the two speakers are both friends)
correlating the adjusted first user toxicity score to the first event and predicting a second event based on the correlation: a person correlates the first adjusted score to the event (e.g. writes down an adjusted score of ‘5’ based on a first event of profanity), and then predicts a second event based on correlation (e,g. determines that a second event is connected to the first profanity event)
classifying the second event as a toxic event by assigning the first user toxicity score to the second event: a person classifies the second event as toxic and gives it the first user toxicity score (e.g. labels the second event as also having a ‘5’)
and implementing…a response …based on the toxic event: after determining the score, the person writes down a response concerning the first user toxicity score (e.g. writes a report, note, etc.)
Claim 1 does not contain any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: No). The only additional limitations in claim 1 “A system, said system comprising: a memory; and a processor in communication with said memory, said processor being configured to perform operations, said operations comprising”, “utilizing optical character recognition (OCR)” and “implementing, automatically, a response generated by machine learning”. These additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which even when viewed in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A: Yes).
Claim 1 does not contain any additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B: No) As discussed above, the only additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using generic computer components, which even when viewed in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-6, “The system” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (machine) (Step 1: Yes). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes which fall into the category of abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1: YES).
In addition to the mental processes recited in independent claim 1, the following limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite further mental processes which can be performed by a person with the aid of pen and paper:
Claim 2:
adjusting said first user toxicity score based on a familiarity between said first user and said second user: a person lowers or increases a toxicity score based on familiarity between users (e.g. close friends, family, strangers)
Claim 2 contains no additional limitations.
Claim 3:
triggering a notification of the first user toxicity score based on the first user toxicity score exceeding a toxicity threshold; wherein the response is an action performed by an avatar in the virtual environment: a person writes down a notification if the score they deemed the event is larger than a threshold, and decides to perform an action as a response.
Claim 3 contains no additional limitations.
Claim 4:
updating a first user profile of said user with said first user toxicity score: a person writes down an updated profile (e.g. written report) for said user, including the calculated first user toxicity score in the profile.
Claim 4 does not contain any additional limitations.
Claim 5:
correlating at least one of said one or more toxicity indicators with a string of events in the virtual environment shared by said first user and said second user with the first user toxicity score: a person observes a user interacting with a virtual environment (e.g. playing a video game), and determines that toxicity indicators (e.g. profanity) are linked with a string of events (e.g. chronological events in the video game).
Claim 5 does not contain any additional limitations.
Claim 6:
predicting a toxic reaction to the first event in the virtual environment shared by said first user and said second user: a person observes a user interacting with virtual environment (e.g. playing a game), and predicts that the user will respond in a toxic manner in response to an event (e.g. event in the video game).
Claim 6 does not contain any additional limitations.
Claims 2-6 do not contain any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: No). The only additional limitations are those discussed in independent claim 1. These additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which even when viewed in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A: Yes).
Claims 2-6 do not contain any additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B: No) As discussed above, the only additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using generic computer components, which even when viewed in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 2-6 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, “A method” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process) (Step 1: Yes). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite limitations similar to those in claim 1 and thus also recite mental processes which fall into the category of abstract idea (see claim 1 analysis) (Step 2A Prong 1: YES).
Claim 7 does not contain any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: No). Claim 7 contains the additional limitations recited in claim 1, which amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer (see claim 1, Step 2A Prong 2 analysis). This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A: Yes).
Claim 7 does not contain any additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B: No) As discussed above, the only additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 8-14, “The system” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (machine) (Step 1: Yes). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes which fall into the category of abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1: YES).
Claims 8, 10, and 12-14 recite limitations similar to those in claims 2-6, and thus also recite mental processes (see claims 2-6 analysis). Additionally, the claims limitations of 9 and 11, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite further mental processes:
Claim 9:
wherein analyzing said discussion includes at least one selected from the group consisting of: evaluating a toxicity event magnitude; evaluating a toxicity event frequency; identifying the context; and identifying a relationship between said first user and said second user: a person analyzes the discussion based on (i) evaluating magnitude of toxicity (e.g. severity of profanity), (ii) frequency (e.g. how often the user has been toxic), (iii) context (e.g. what event is linked with toxicity), and (iv) relationship between the first and second user (e.g. friends, family, strangers).
Claim 9 contains no additional limitations.
Claim 11:
triggering said notifying said human moderator of said first user toxicity score based on said first user toxicity score exceeding a toxicity threshold: a person compares the calculated score to a threshold, and decides to notify the human moderator based on determining the score is greater than a threshold.
Claim 11 does not contain any additional limitations.
Claims 8-14 do not contain any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: No). The only additional limitations are those discussed in independent claim 7. These additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using generic computer which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A: Yes).
Claims 8-14 do not contain any additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B: No) As discussed above, the only additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using generic computer, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 8-14 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, “A computer program product” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (article of manufacture) (Step 1: Yes). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite limitations similar to those in claim 1 and thus also recite mental processes which fall into the category of abstract idea (see claim 1 analysis) (Step 2A Prong 1: YES).
Claim 15 does not contain any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: No). The only additional limitations in claim 1 “A computer program product, said computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, said program instructions executable by a processor to cause said processor to perform a function, said function comprising” and those mentioned with regards to claim 1 (see claim 1, Step 2A Prong 2 analysis). These additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which even when viewed in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A: Yes).
Claim 15 does not contain any additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B: No) As discussed above, the only additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using generic computer components, which even when viewed in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 16-20, “The system” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (machine) (Step 1: Yes). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite limitations similar to those in claims 2-6 and thus also recite mental processes which fall into the category of abstract idea (see claim 2-6 analysis) (Step 2A Prong 1: YES).
Claims 16-20 do not contain any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: No). The only additional limitations are those discussed in independent claim 15. These additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A: Yes).
Claims 16-20 do not contain any additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B: No) As discussed above, the only additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using generic computer, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 16-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huffman et al. (US 2023/0396457 A1, hereinafter Huffman) in view of Fogu et al. (US 2021/0058352 A1, hereinafter Fogu) in further view of Nair & Parida (US 2023/0014321 A1, hereinafter Nair).
Regarding claim 1, Huffman discloses A system (para. 0244 “Illustrative embodiments of the present invention may employ conventional components such as conventional computers…”), said system comprising: a memory (para. 0241 “Those skilled in the art should appreciate that such computer instructions can be written in a number of programming languages for use with many computer architectures or operating systems. Furthermore, such instructions may be stored in any memory device”); and a processor in communication with said memory (para. 0243 “Computer program logic implementing all or part of the functionality previously described herein may be executed at different times on a single processor (e.g., concurrently) or may be executed at the same or different times on multiple processors and may run under a single operating system process/thread or under different operating system processes/threads. Thus, the term “computer process” refers generally to the execution of a set of computer program instructions regardless of whether different computer processes are executed on the same or different processors and regardless of whether different computer processes run under the same operating system process/thread or different operating system processes/threads.”), said processor being configured to perform operations (para. 0243 “Thus, the term “computer process” refers generally to the execution of a set of computer program instructions regardless of whether different computer processes are executed on the same or different processors and regardless of whether different computer processes run under the same operating system process/thread or different operating system processes/threads.”), said operations comprising: detecting a discussion between a first user and a second user …(para. 0035 “To that end, the system 100 interfaces between a number of users, such as a speaker 102, a listener 104, and a moderator 106.”; para. 0038 “Thus, the reference numeral 102 may be used with reference to users 102 or players 102, with the understanding that these users 102 or players 102 may become the speaker 102 (but do not necessarily have to become the speaker 102) at various points throughout the conversation.”; para. 0049 “The system also has a stage converter 214, configured to receive the speech 110 and convert the speech in a meaningful way that is interpretable by the stage 112-118.”); analyzing said discussion for one or more toxicity indicators (para. 0049 “The system also has a stage converter 214, configured to receive the speech 110 and convert the speech in a meaningful way that is interpretable by the stage 112-118.”; para. 0052 “The system 100 also includes a toxicity machine learning 215 configured to determine a likelihood (i.e., a confidence interval), for each stage, that the speech 110 contains toxicity.”; Fig. 2B: toxicity indicators (toxic words) are detected via analyzers (235A-F) for sexual vocabulary, curse words, drug discussion, gender identity hate, racial hate, etc.) comprising a context (para. 0169 “The process proceeds to step 304, where the system 100 receives platform content policy guidelines. The content policy includes information about what kind of speech 110 content is considered to be toxic. The platform may provide specific details on specific categories (e.g., the types enumerated previously, such as harassments, manipulations, etc.). Furthermore, the platform may provide details about which types of categories of toxicity it considers to be more toxic than others.”), wherein analyzing comprises correlating the one or more toxicity indicators with a first event in a virtual environment (a user performs a first event (speaks a first utterance) which is analyzed and correlated with one or more toxicity indicators (indications of cursing, drugs, hate speech, etc.): para. 0049 “The system also has a stage converter 214, configured to receive the speech 110 and convert the speech in a meaningful way that is interpretable by the stage 112-118.”; para. 0052 “The system 100 also includes a toxicity machine learning 215 configured to determine a likelihood (i.e., a confidence interval), for each stage, that the speech 110 contains toxicity.”; Fig. 2B: toxicity indicators (toxic words) are detected via analyzers (235A-F) for sexual vocabulary, curse words, drug discussion, gender identity hate, racial hate, etc.; Fig. 5, events (particular data entries representing speech) are correlated with toxicity indicators (particular ‘Offense Categories’, such as ‘Adult Language’)); calculating a first user toxicity score based on said one or more toxicity indicators (para. 0069 “The toxicity scorer 236 may consider a number of factors when determining a toxicity score. Accordingly, the toxicity scorer may have a number of sub-components and/or sub-modules configured to determine specific types of toxicity. The toxicity scorer 236 may provide particular toxicity values for each of the sub-categories described below (e.g., scorer, analyzer, and/or detector), or may provide a wholistic toxicity score based on a combination of some or all of the factors described below.”) and adjusting the first user toxicity score based on the context (para. 0177 “While platform A may be tolerant of adult language given the warfare context, it may not tolerate gender/sexual hate speech. Accordingly, the raw score of a 6 may be adjusted to a weighted toxicity score of 9. This type of adjustment based on the content policy may be made on a category-by-category basis, in accordance with the content policy.”); correlating the adjusted first user toxicity score to the first event (para. 0169 “The system 100 may thus weight toxicity as a function of these variables. In the context of this application, the platform content policy guidelines are used to provide weights to the various categories of toxicity that are scored by the scorer 236.”; Fig. 5, events (particular data entries representing speech) are correlated with adjusted toxicity scores (‘Score’, which may be adjusted score based on context: para. 0197 “Then, the system 100 generates a weighted toxicity score that reflects how much the platform cares about the adult language. For any particular speech clip, the scorer 236 may have a raw score in every category (e.g., blaring music, drug discussion, etc.), as well as a weighted score based on the content policy of the platform.”)) and predicting a second event based on the correlation (a second event (second user speech) is predicted (deemed toxic) based on previous event; specifically, a user’s toxicity history is used for analyzing speech content and scoring: para. 0069 “However, the system 100 analyzes the speech content of each clip individually, and uses the surrounding context (e.g., other speech clips from other players and/or the player's toxicity history) to provide the toxicity score.”); classifying the second event as a toxic event … (); and implementing, automatically, a response … based on the toxic event (para. 0159 “Various embodiments may include an automatic action threshold setter 238. The automatic setter 238 may be configured to automatically take corrective action for toxic speech of a certain score (e.g., very egregious toxic speech that is very likely to be toxic). Thus, the setter 238 establishes a threshold score for automatically taking action in response to toxic speech of a particular score.”).
Huffman does not specifically disclose wherein detecting comprises utilizing optical character recognition (OCR) on video content comprising the discussion to convert the discussion into machine-encoded text.
[implementing, automatically, a response] generated by machine learning based on the toxic event.
Fogu teaches wherein detecting comprises utilizing optical character recognition (OCR) on video content comprising the discussion to convert the discussion into machine-encoded text (para. 0034 “In some examples, the machine-learned model may include an optical character recognition (OCR) layer to identify the potentially offensive text depicted in an image or video.”; para. 0090 “For instance, the machine-learned model may be an image classifier trained to identify potentially offensive images or video in the story, an audio classifier trained to identify potentially offensive sounds or speech in the story, and/or a text classifier trained to identify potentially offensive text (including text detected using OCR) in the story, to name a few examples.”; para. 0097 “In some examples, other content types may be included in a direct message, such as images, video, emojis, and so forth as described above in relation to FIG. 1.”) and [implementing, automatically, a response] generated by machine learning based on the toxic event (para. 0057 “In some examples, the machine-learned model 114 may determine an overall offensiveness score by combining individual offensiveness scores of components of the content to be shared by the first user 102(1) having different content types.”; para. 0060 “…If the social networking system 106 determines that a notification is to be displayed, an operation 116 (indicated by “3”) includes sending an instruction to output a notification based on the offensiveness level (e.g., likelihood that the content is offensive). The notification may provide an indication to the first user 102(1) that the content that the first user 102(1) intends to share with one or more of the other users 102(2)-102(n) may potentially be offensive to the other user(s). …Furthermore, in some examples, the amount of time that the notification is displayed by the computing device 104(1) may vary based on the offensiveness score, such as by displaying the notification for more time before sharing the content when the offensiveness score is higher, and/or displaying the notification for less time before sharing the content when the offensiveness score is lower.”).
Huffman and Fogu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as
they both are in the same field of detecting toxicity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huffman to incorporate the teachings of Fogu in order to specifically detect by utilizing OCR on video content comprising the discussion to convert the discussion into machine-encoded text. Doing so would be beneficial, as this would aid in identifying potentially offensive text present in the video (para. 0055). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to generate by machine learning a response. Doing so would be beneficial, as using this described notification technique would reduce instances of bullying and improve relationships between users (para. 0014).
Huffman in view of Fogu does not specifically disclose:
[classifying the second event as a toxic event] by assigning the first user toxicity score to the second event
Nair teaches classifying the second event as a toxic event by assigning the first user toxicity score to the second event (para. 0034 “In FIG. 2E, avatar 200 then engages in improper or undesired behavior by getting into a dispute with avatar 202, where disputes may be detected as below, via detected language, audio volume, speech (words indicative of conflict), or the like. While the performance score of avatar 200 does not change during the dispute (unless the dispute lasts so long that it begins to reduce the average battles per unit time of avatar 200, etc.), remaining at 3.2, the dispute may be detected by server 102, such as by methods and processes for detecting undesired or improper behavior as further described below.”; Fig. 6, first monitoring performed (602), followed by second monitoring (606), assigns the second score to the second monitoring, which can be the same score as for the first monitoring (para. 0034)).
Huffman, Fogu, and Nair are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are all in the same field of detecting toxicity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huffman in view of Fogu to incorporate the teachings of Nair in order to classify the second event as a toxic event by specifically assigning the first user toxicity score to the second event. Doing so would be beneficial, as a lack of the performance score increase would indicate an ongoing inappropriate behavior (para. 0049).
Regarding claim 2, Huffman in view of Fogu and Nair discloses adjusting said first user toxicity score based on a familiarity between said first user and said second user (Huffman, para. 0063 “For example, for speech 110 in a communication with someone on a user's friend's list, the threshold for toxicity may be increased (e.g., offensive speech may be said in a more joking manner to friends).”).
Regarding claim 3, Huffman in view of Fogu and Nair discloses triggering a notification of the first user toxicity score based on the first user toxicity score exceeding a toxicity threshold (Huffman, para. 0157 “Various embodiments may include an automatic action threshold setter 238. The automatic setter 238 may be configured to automatically take corrective action for toxic speech of a certain score (e.g., very egregious toxic speech that is very likely to be toxic). Thus, the setter 238 establishes a threshold score for automatically taking action in response to toxic speech of a particular score.”; para. 0166 “In alternative embodiments, an offense may be actioned automatically. Community providers (e.g., video game studios) can configure a set of thresholds that automatically notifies the game to take action. For example, the system may classify speech under X category, provide the context around it, as well as a link to the audio. The game/platform may then automatically ban or mute an offensive player/user.”); wherein the response is an action performed by an avatar in the virtual environment (Nair, para. 0008 “Punishments may be for a specified time, or may be reversed or undone when avatars exhibit good or remedial behavior. For example, avatars may be muted, demonetized, forbidden from certain areas of the computer-generated environment, banned, or the like for a specified period of time, whereupon these avatars may be fully reinstated and their punishment removed.”; para. 0032 “As the behavior score of avatar 200 has fallen to 1.3 (e.g., above a threshold difference from historical score 3.2 and thus indicating excessive inappropriate or undesired behavior, where this threshold value may be any suitable value), server 102 performs an action upon avatar 200, to punish avatar 200 and/or reduce any risk to other avatars. In this example, server 102 marks avatar 200 as an abusive character by changing its color, and applying a text-based “ABUSIVE CHARACTER” banner 204 above avatar 200.”; in order for claim language not to be interpreted as new matter under 112(a), the Examiner is interpreting “the response” to be an “event” as defined in Applicant’s spec., as Applicant’s spec. only describes that “events” are actions performed by an avatar in the virtual environment (see para. 0044)).
Huffman, Fogu, and Nair are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are all in the same field of detecting toxicity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further incorporated the teachings of Nair in order to specifically have the response be an action performed by an avatar in the virtual environment. Doing so would be beneficial, as this would provide incentives for the user to correct their behavior (Nair, para. 0008).
Regarding claim 4, Huffman in view of Fogu and Nair discloses updating a first user profile of said first user with said first user toxicity score (Huffman, a user profile (history of a particular user’s toxicity) is updated with time and used to score later clips for toxicity: para. 0066 “However, the system 100 analyzes the speech content of each clip individually, and uses the surrounding context (e.g., other speech clips from other players and/or the player's toxicity history) to provide the toxicity score.”; para. 0195 “The toxicity score provided for each clip may vary from clip to clip. Even if a speaker says the same thing twice in a single session (e.g., once early and once later), the two clips may be scored differently. For example, the later clip might be scored higher because the speaker has a previous history of that the particular toxic speech content. The second clip is thus assigned a higher score.”).
Regarding claim 5, Huffman in view of Fogu and Nair discloses correlating a string of toxic events in the virtual environment shared by said first user and said second user with the first user toxicity score (para. 0034 “In FIG. 2E, avatar 200 then engages in improper or undesired behavior by getting into a dispute with avatar 202, where disputes may be detected as below, via detected language, audio volume, speech (words indicative of conflict), or the like. While the performance score of avatar 200 does not change during the dispute (unless the dispute lasts so long that it begins to reduce the average battles per unit time of avatar 200, etc.), remaining at 3.2, the dispute may be detected by server 102, such as by methods and processes for detecting undesired or improper behavior as further described below.”; Fig. 6, string of events: first monitoring performed (602), followed by second monitoring (606), assigns the second score to the second monitoring, which can be the same score as for the first monitoring (para. 0034)).
Huffman, Fogu, and Nair are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are all in the same field of detecting toxicity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Nair in order to correlate the string of toxic events in the virtual environment shared by said first user and said second user with the first user toxicity score, for the same rationale given in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Huffman in view of Fogu and Nair discloses predicting a toxic reaction to the first event in the virtual environment shared by said first user and said second user (Huffman, para. 0063 “As another example, a recent death in the video game, or a low overall team score may be used to adjust the threshold for toxicity downwardly (e.g., if the speaker 102 is losing the game, they may be more likely to be toxic).”).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is a method claim with limitations similar to system claim 1, and is thus also rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, Huffman in view of Fogu and Nair discloses wherein analyzing said discussion includes at least one selected from the group consisting of: evaluating a toxicity event magnitude; evaluating a toxicity event frequency; identifying the context; and identifying a relationship between said first user and said second user (Huffman, toxicity event magnitude: para. 0076 discusses analyzing severity of curse words in determining toxicity score; toxicity event frequency: para. 0047 “If a single user creates multiple less egregious items, however, the system may rank them as increasingly severe because they represent a pattern of (less egregious but still important) toxicity, until either the player stops or it does get a sufficiently high toxicity score. In this way, less egregious items may take longer to have action taken on them. Thus, while the system 100 may provide discrete toxicity scores for individual speech clips, the score accounts for context around the session and the user (e.g., including previous scores for other discrete clips).”; identifying a context: para. 0063 “Furthermore, the user context analyzer 226 may adjust the toxicity threshold by communicating with the threshold setter 230. For example, for speech 110 in a communication with someone on a user's friend's list, the threshold for toxicity may be increased (e.g., offensive speech may be said in a more joking manner to friends).”; identifying a relationship: para. 0063 “Furthermore, the user context analyzer 226 may adjust the toxicity threshold by communicating with the threshold setter 230. For example, for speech 110 in a communication with someone on a user's friend's list, the threshold for toxicity may be increased (e.g., offensive speech may be said in a more joking manner to friends).).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, Huffman in view of Fogu and Nair discloses triggering said notifying said human moderator of said first user toxicity score based on said first user toxicity score exceeding a toxicity threshold (Huffman, para. 0213 “FIG. 6 shows the toxicity moderation timeline 400 of FIG. 4 filtered to show instances of toxicity having a higher score (i.e., above a score of 9). Thus, illustrative embodiments enable moderators 106 to quickly search for different ranges of toxicity scores. For example, the moderator 106 may want to begin by viewing the most toxic speech rated by the system 100. Alternatively, in some embodiments, toxic speech above a given toxicity score is automatically handled by the system 100. Instead, the moderator 106 may wish to view a mid-tier of toxicity to make a human determination regarding toxicity on speech that the system 100 has less certainty on, and thereby helping to improve the toxicity detection system 100.”).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is a computer program product claim with limitations similar to method claim 1, and is thus also rejected under similar rationale.
Additionally, Huffman discloses A computer program product, said computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith (para. 0240 “In an alternative embodiment, the disclosed apparatus and methods (e.g., as in any methods, flow charts, or logic flows described above) may be implemented as a computer program product for use with a computer system. Such implementation may include a series of computer instructions fixed either on a tangible, non-transitory, non-transient medium, such as a computer readable medium (e.g., a diskette, CD-ROM, ROM, or fixed disk). The series of computer instructions can embody all or part of the functionality previously described herein with respect to the system.”), said program instructions executable by a processor to cause said processor to perform a function, said function comprising (para. 0243 “Computer program logic implementing all or part of the functionality previously described herein may be executed at different times on a single processor (e.g., concurrently) or may be executed at the same or different times on multiple processors and may run under a single operating system process/thread or under different operating system processes/threads. Thus, the term “computer process” refers generally to the execution of a set of computer program instructions regardless of whether different computer processes are executed on the same or different processors and regardless of whether different computer processes run under the same operating system process/thread or different operating system processes/threads.”).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Li & Wu (US 11,354,900 B1): classification of content as offensive or not via analysis of audio, video ,text, and user context (Fig. 2)
Zavesky et al. (US 2020/0134298 A1): detecting offensive behavior, modifying visual content of avatar in response to offensive behavior (Fig. 2, para. 0045)
McAlpine & Geddes (US 2021/0272584 A1): perform remedial actions in response to detecting toxicity (Fig. 2B).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY DOUGLAS HUTCHESON whose telephone number is (703)756-1601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at (571)-272-7799. 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.
/CODY DOUGLAS HUTCHESON/Examiner, Art Unit 2659
/PIERRE LOUIS DESIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2659