DETAILED ACTON
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/24/2024, 6/17/2024, 11/19/2024 and 3/7/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it claims a “computer program product residing on a computer readable medium.” Paragraph 0624 of the Specification gives examples of a CRM including signals. Thus applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in lights of the specification and taking into account the meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2111.01), the claim as a whole covers a transitory signal, as such, does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (MPEP 2106.01). To overcome this rejection, applicant is encouraged to amend claim to include substance equivalent to “computer program product residing on a non- transitory computer readable medium ...”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu; Nathan et al. US 20140278308 A1 (hereafter Liu) and in further view of Bradley; Nigel et al. US 20220345778 A1 (hereafter Bradley) and in further view of Kazi; Rousseau Newaz et al. US 20170220579 A1 (hereafter Kazi).
Regarding claim 1, “a computer-implemented method executed on a computing device comprising: enabling the publication of a piece of content within a communications network; identifying one or more individuals who have viewed the piece of content; and examining accessible media associated with the one or more individuals to gauge a reaction to the piece of content” Liu para 50-55, 78 teaches user reactions or activities with respect to the recommended content are monitored, at 235, and analyzed at 240. Such events or activities include clicks, skips, dwell time measured, scroll location and speed, position, time, sharing, forwarding, hovering, motions such as shaking, etc. It is understood that any other events or activities may be monitored and analyzed. Whereas Liu does disclose reaction to content, Liu does not use the term publication but in an analogous art,
Bradley teaches examining accessible media associated with the one or more individuals to gauge a reaction to the piece of content but does not use the word “publication” to describe the media content (para 94-101, 353, 453).
In an analogous art, Kazi para 55 and 70 describing published content wherein content item may be defined to include a link to an article, a link to a media item, an embedded content object containing a media item, or any other suitable reference to particular content. The social-networking system 160 may identify communications associated with the particular content item.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Liu for providing information regarding user reactions during presentation of media content to gauge user reception of the media content and/or to improve future media content offerings by further incorporating known elements of Bradley for examining accessible media associated with the one or more individuals to gauge a reaction to the piece of content because the modification of known elements would encompass the inclusion of any media considered a publication as disclosed in Kazi.
Regarding claim 2, “wherein the communications network includes one or more of: one or more social media platforms; one or more websites; one or more video-sharing platforms; one or more virtual reality platforms; one or more gaming platforms; one or more messaging platforms; one or more financial platforms; and one or more blog platforms” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 wherein Bradley para 14, 50, 54, 60; Liu para 60, 63, 67, 83 teaches social media platforms; See also Kazi para 22, 24, 27 disclosing social media platform.
Regarding claim 3, “wherein the piece of content includes one or more of: one or more image-based content; one or more audio-based content; one or more video-based content; one or more social media posts; one or more advertisements; one or more press releases; and one or more stories” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-2 wherein Bradley para 14, 50, 54, 60; Liu para 60, 63, 67, 83 teaches social media platforms comprising posts; See also Kazi para 22, 24, 27, 33 disclosing social media platform comprising posts.
Regarding claim 4, “wherein enabling the publication of a piece of content within a communications network includes: enabling an interested party to overtly publish the piece of content within the communications network” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-3 wherein Kazi para 56 and 70 describing private and public online social network posts published content wherein content item may be defined to include a link to an article, a link to a media item, an embedded content object containing a media item, or any other suitable reference to particular content. The social-networking system 160 may identify communications associated with the particular content item.
Regarding claim 5, “wherein enabling the publication of a piece of content within a communications network includes: enabling an interested party to covertly publish the piece of content within the communications network” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-4 wherein Kazi para 56 and 70 describing private and public online social network posts published content wherein content item may be defined to include a link to an article, a link to a media item, an embedded content object containing a media item, or any other suitable reference to particular content. The social-networking system 160 may identify communications associated with the particular content item.
Regarding claim 6, “wherein examining accessible media associated with the one or more individuals to gauge a reaction to the piece of content includes: examining accessible media associated with the one or more individuals across a plurality of content platforms to gauge a reaction to the piece of content” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-5 wherein Bradley para 52; Liu para 50, 78. 88 teaches gauge reaction to media content; See also Kazi para 55, 62, 89 disclosing user identifying data for gauging viewer reaction to media content.
Regarding claim 7, “wherein examining accessible media associated with the one or more individuals to gauge a reaction to the piece of content includes: vectorizing the piece of content, thus defining vectorized content” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-6 wherein Liu teaches the additional limitation of claim 7 in para 47, 51, 61, 69, 75, 81, 86, 89 disclosing examining accessing media content with a user profile to gauge a reaction comprising vector analysis of the content.
Regarding claim 8, “wherein examining accessible media associated with the one or more individuals to gauge a reaction to the piece of content further includes: comparing the vectorized content to a pool of vectorized known positive reactions to gauge the reaction to the piece of content” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-7 wherein Liu teaches the additional limitation of claim 7 in Fig. 4-6 and para 47, 51, 61, 69, 75, 81, 86, 89 disclosing examining accessing media content with a user profile to gauge a reaction comprising vector analysis of the content.
Regarding claim 9, “wherein examining accessible media associated with the one or more individuals to gauge a reaction to the piece of content further includes: comparing the vectorized content to a pool of vectorized known negative reactions to gauge the reaction to the piece of content” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-8 wherein Liu teaches the additional limitation of claim 7 in para 94, 111 designating a negative or positive indicator as a gauge of viewer reaction; see also Fig. 4-6 and para 47, 51, 61, 69, 75, 81, 86, 89 disclosing examining accessing media content with a user profile to gauge a reaction comprising vector analysis of the content. See also Kazi para 39, 70 as indicating positive or negative viewer sentiment.
Regarding claim 10, “further comprising: enabling an interested party to embrace the piece of content in the event of a positive reaction to the piece of content” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-8 wherein Liu para 46-50, 63 and Kazi para 118 and Bradley para 59-60 recommending content to an interested viewer based viewer collected sentiments/reactions.
Regarding the computer program product residing on a computer readable medium claims 11-20 and computing system claims 21-30 are grouped and rejected with the method claims 1-10 because the steps of the method claims are met by the disclosure of the apparatus and methods of the reference(s) as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-10 and because the steps of the method are easily converted into elements of computer implemented methods by one of ordinary skill in the art.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFONSO CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3950. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10am to 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, Nathan Flynn can be reached. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALFONSO CASTRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights