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 .
This communication is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 3/17/2026 for application 18/609,854 filed 3/19/2024. Claims 5-6 have been canceled. Claims 1-4, 11, 13-17, and 19, are amended and hereby entered. No claims are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC 101:
The applicant submits the claims do not recite an abstract idea because similar to Ex parte Martineau (i) the examiner does not show consideration of well-understood, routine, and conventional, and (ii) the examiner fails to show analysis that when evaluated as a whole, is not a practical application of the judicial exception.
First, the applicant submits there is no establishment of the claim elements being “well-understood, routine, and conventional”. However, establishing claim elements to be “well-understood, routine, and conventional” relates to the Berkheimer analysis MPEP2106.05(d), which is only necessary when the eligibility determination relies upon the observation of extra solution activity among non-abstract claim elements. The present rejection does not rely upon a determination of extra solution activity; accordingly, the Berkheimer analysis is not relevant, informative or dispositive. The rejection observes an “apply it” level recitation of an abstract idea performed in a general-purpose computer environment, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements in the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons they do not amount to a practical application. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees and the rejection is maintained.
Second, the applicant submits conclusory statements in that the analysis provided in the final office action dated 10/21/2025 isolates elements and does not take the specification into consideration. The claim as a whole in light of the specification was analyzed and found to amount to no more than an “apply it” recitation of the abstract idea performed in a general-purpose computer environment as outlined in the rejection.
Further, the applicant submits that the claims recite functions outside the human mind such as synchronized displaying of content items, accessing across a computer network indication to reactions and scrolling, displaying a control icon with permissions, and determing comprising querying a database to present meta data. However, the use of a computer to perform an abstract idea results in an “apply it” level recitation. The identified abstract idea of a mental process (receiving information, processing information, and displaying the result of analysis) is performed with the computer network and database as inputs are received, information is processed, and results are displayed. The elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they act as a modality to implement the abstract idea, consistent with MPEP section 2106.05(f).
Further, the applicant submits the specification discloses a technical improvement in enabling users to participate with one another while viewing content items. However, this is directed to the abstract idea. There is no improvement to the underlying technology (additional elements outlined in the rejection), rather a use of the general-purpose computing environment to perform the abstract idea.
Further, the applicant submits the claim as a whole reflects the disclosed technical improvement with specific technical architecture. However, the technical architecture described is again directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (receiving information, processing information, and displaying the results of analysis) and uses a general-purpose computing environment to perform the abstract idea.
Further, the applicant submits the previous office action dismissed functional claim limitations as intended results. However, this was written by the examiner referencing the applicant’s arguments. There is no functional claim limitation reciting “allowing users to participate with one another while viewing content items”. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC 102/103:
The applicant’s amendments necessitate new prior art. The rejection of Claims 1-21 now relies on different prior art rendering the applicant’s arguments moot.
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 1-22 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 claims contain 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.
Claim 1 recites “majority rule”. For the purposes of compact prosecution, majority rule is interpreted in its plain meaning and in light of the specification as above a threshold amount of users.
Claim 13 recites “indication of a fourth user”. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted in its plain meaning and light of the specification as indications from more than one user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) with no practical application and without significantly more.
Claims 19-20 are methods, and Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are systems. Thus, each claim on its face is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 USC 101. However, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to a mental process (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The independent claims (1, 17, and 19) recite a method and systems to evaluate data associated with various users and display content based on the processed data. These claim elements are being interpreted as concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Using data and meta data to make recommendations can be equivalently achieved by human observation and evaluation of information. For example, analyzing data and reactions from users can be done by a human to make recommendations and suggestions on social media content to be shown. The claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites an “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed towards a method and systems to implement the identified abstract idea of receiving information, processing information, and displaying the result of the analysis (i.e., processing user data to recommend content items and the like) on a generically claimed computer structure. The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The independent claims recite the additional elements “a computer network” “one or more processors”, “computing device”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, and “database across a computer network”. These claim elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general computer environment. The machines merely act as a modality to implement the abstract idea and are not indicative of integration into a practical application (i.e., the additional elements are simply used as a tool to perform the abstract idea), see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
In regards to the dependent claims
Claims 2-4, 7-16, 18, and 20-22 introduce no new additional abstract ideas or new additional elements and do not impact analysis under 35 USC 101
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 20240235869 A1) in view of Marggraff (US 20230123893 A1) in further view of Crawford (US 20110010618 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, 17, and 19, (substantially similar in scope and language) Ellis teaches:
A computing device comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable mediums storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to perform operations comprising: [see at least Ellis: (Para 0083-0087)]
generating a group feed comprising an association among a first user application associated with a first user, a second application associated with a second user, and a third application associated with a third user, and a plurality of content items, wherein a group of users comprises the first user, the second user, and the third user; [see at least Ellis: (Figure 8-9) (Para 0012) “the disclosed system may create a media feed conferencing room (e.g., a digital group living room) and add the initiating user and one or more additional users”, (Para 0056) “In certain embodiments, once media conferencing room 222 has been established (e.g., as a live media conferencing room), the disclosed systems may generate a suggestion that an additional user (e.g., a third user) join media feed conferencing room 222 (e.g., in accordance with a privacy setting selected by user 206 for media feed conferencing room”]
determining, based on metadata associated with the first user, metadata associated with the second user, and metadata associated with the third user a first content item of the plurality of content items; [see at least Ellis: (Figures 8-9), (Para 0021) “In one example, the scrollable collection may include newsfeed posts created by contacts of a particular user (e.g., friends of the particular user) and/or other users that the particular user is following (i.e., connected content). Additionally, the newsfeed may include non connected content (e.g., content created by users who are not contacts of the particular user)”, (Para 0055) “In such examples, a machine learning system may select content for the reactive feed based on a variety of factors (e.g., a category of a group of users participating in media conferencing room 222, an interest of the primary user who initiated media conferencing room 222, a combined interest of two or more of the participating users, search parameters provided by the participating users to a search feature such as a hashtag prompt, etc.)”]
causing, across a computer network, the first content item to be displayed synchronously on a first computing device of the first user and on a second computing device of the second user, and a third computing device of the third user [see at least Ellis: (Para 0010) “The present disclosure is directed to a social media streaming space (e.g., an interface of a media conferencing room) that enables shared social media feed engagement experiences (e.g., enabling users to view and/or interact with a social media feed together in real time via different devices)”]
accessing across a computer network, from the first user, the second user, or third user, an indication of a reaction to the first content item; [see at least Ellis: (Para 0058) “The co-engagement framework may empower each user in a group of users to engage independently with shared content (e.g., a shared social media feed) in real-time, with each user in the group accessing their own user interface to comment, react to, and/or share content and to prompt conversation”]
accessing across a computer network, from the first user, the second user, or the third user an indication to scroll to a second content item of the plurality of content items; [see at least Ellis: (Para 0021) “In some examples, a newsfeed may scroll (e.g., upward or downward) to reveal the different posts within the newsfeed (e.g., in response to receiving user scrolling input)”]
determining, from a plurality of content items stored in a database across a computer network, the second content item, based on the metadata of the first user, the metadata of the second user, the metadata of a third user, and the reaction to the first content item. [see at least Ellis: (Para 0061) “For example, social media consumption content may be selected based on a relationship between user 206 and a creator of the social media consumption content (e.g., in response to determining that the creator is a contact of user 206 and/or that user 206 is following the creator), a user history and/or demographic of user 206 (e.g., indicative of a user interest), user data relating to a contact of user 206 and/or additional users with a feature in common with user 206 (e.g., data indicating that such users viewed and/or reacted to certain content), etc.”]
by providing a respective scroll input across the computer network to the computing device, to scroll to a third content item, [see at least Ellis: (Para 0021) “In some examples, a newsfeed may scroll (e.g., upward or downward) to reveal the different posts within the newsfeed (e.g., in response to receiving user scrolling input)”, (Para 0051) “In some examples, media module 212 may enable each user participating in media conferencing room 222 (e.g., user 206 and additional user 216) to interact with social media feed 220 (e.g., to scroll, select posts for display, leave feedback, change to a different social media for co-viewing, etc.). In other examples, only the initiator user who initiated the co-viewing streaming session (e.g., user 206), and/or a user who was given digital permission by the initiator user, may be enabled to interact with social media feed 220.”]
determining, by querying across the computer network database of the plurality of content items, the third content item, the querying based on the metadata of the first user, the metadata of the second user, the metadata of the third user, and group metadata, [see at least Ellis: (Para 0039) “For example, media module 212 may create a joint social media feed configured for both user 206 and additional user 216 in response to receiving user input from user 206 requesting to co-view and selecting additional user 216. A joint social media feed may include a variety of content (e.g., content selected based on an overlapping interest between the users, overlapping contacts, overlapping permissions, etc.)”, (Para 0061) “For example, a module may select social media consumption content for user 206 (e.g., a social media composition for a social media feed and/or a social media feed relating to a particular topic or theme) and/or suggested additional users for user 206 (e.g., users with whom to co-view a social media feed, a digital group to join, etc.). In these embodiments, the module may select content for user 206 in a variety of ways”, (Para 0084) “The term “memory device” generally represents any type or form of volatile or non-volatile storage device or medium capable of storing data and/or computer-readable instructions. In one example, a memory device may store, load, and/or maintain one or more of the modules described herein.”]
wherein the group metadata comprises the reaction to the first content item [see at least Ellis: (Figure 8), (Para 0058) “The co-engagement framework may empower each user in a group of users to engage independently with shared content (e.g., a shared social media feed) in real-time, with each user in the group accessing their own user interface to comment, react to, and/or share content and to prompt conversation.”]
While Ellis teaches a group feed it does not teach but Marggraff does teach:
causing, across the computer network, a control icon to be displayed on the first computing device, on the second computing device, and on the third computing device, the control icon indicating which of the first user, the second user, and the third user is permitted to provide a scroll input, wherein the control icon is dynamically updated based on permissions associated with the first user, the second user, and the third user; and
[see at least Marggraff: (Figure 3), (Para 0085) “FIG. 3 illustrates various methods to monitor degree of agreement among shared-experience users to help an initiator of an action, all users, or a subset of users decide when to complete the virtual action (i.e., turning the page)”, (Para 0086) “Further, the identities of the individuals are displayed as thumbnail images (or live video streams) 33a and corresponding names (or nicknames) are displayed to the right 33b of each image. Using tablet devices and if needed, user identities may be verified on remote devices visually (e.g., using a device camera 34a), by identifying one or more fingerprints via the use of a touchpad 34b, through the use of passwords, voice identification (via a microphone, not shown) or other means.”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the group feed (Ellis) with a control icon (Marggraff). One of ordinary skill would have recognized the benefits of including a control icon to allow users to see who and what decisions are being made in regards to scrolling. Ellis discloses, “A joint social media feed may include a variety of content (e.g., content selected based on an overlapping interest between the users, overlapping contacts, overlapping permissions, etc.)”. Including a control icon in the group scrolling would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
While the combination of Ellis and Marggraff teaches a group feed and control icon, it does not teach but Crawford does teach:
in response to determining that at least a majority of the group of users have indicated, [see at least Crawford: (Para 0031) “For example, group controller 120 may be adapted to determine or otherwise establish at least a portion of group decision input 130 based, at least in part, on a majority rule decision associated with two or more of the received sensed outputs 110”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the group feed and control icon (Ellis and Marggraff) with majority rule (Crawford). One of ordinary skill would have recognized the benefits of using majority rule to determine when scrolling is necessary in a group feed. This would allow for a consensus on decisions made. Ellis discloses in paragraph 39, “A joint social media feed may include a variety of content (e.g., content selected based on an overlapping interest between the users, overlapping contacts, overlapping permissions, etc.)”. Marggraff discloses in paragraph 34-38, “2. automatically indicate to all cooperative-control users that an initiation component has been enacted; 3. provide an opportunity for each cooperative-control user to indicate agreement and/or disagreement to proceed to the completion component of the virtual action; 4. optionally display the completion component to the initiator and/or to each cooperative-control user immediately upon indicating agreement to proceed; 5. optionally provide real-time measures of the degree of agreement to the initiator, a subset of users or all users; 6. upon reaching a predetermined threshold number of agreeing shared-experience users or a forcing indication from one or more users (including the initiator), enact the completion component of the virtual action on all devices”. Using a majority rule in the threshold decision making group feed taught by the combination of Ellis and Marggraff would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2, 18, and 20, (substantially similar in scope and language) the combination of Ellis, Marggraff, and Crawford teach the limitations set forth above, Ellis further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: accessing the plurality of content items on an interaction platform, wherein the first user, second user, or the third user is logged into the interaction platform. [(Para 0010) “In some examples, a user may initiate a social media feed co-engagement experience (e.g., a “View with Me” experience) by selecting an initiation element in a social media interface (e.g., a social media feed interface, a content discovery interface, and/or a dedicated co-engagement entry point interface)”, (Para 0020) “In some examples, user 206 of user device 204 may be a user (e.g., a member) of a social networking platform (e.g., social media platform 208). In these examples, user device 204 may have installed an instance of a social media application 210, which may operate as part of social media platform 208 and through which one or more services provided by social media platform 208 (e.g., via server 202) may be accessible.”]
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Ellis, Marggraff, and Crawford teach the limitations set forth above, Ellis further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: accessing the metadata of the first user, the second user, and the metadata of the third user on the interaction platform, wherein the first user, second user, and the third user are logged into the interaction platform. [see at least Ellis: (Figures 8-9), (Para 0065) “The computer-implemented method of examples 1-2, where the digital conferencing room is further configured to stream a user stream corresponding to the first user and/or a user stream corresponding to the second user”, (Para 0039) “For example, media module 212 may create a joint social media feed configured for both user 206 and additional user 216 in response to receiving user input from user 206 requesting to co-view and selecting additional user 216. A joint social media feed may include a variety of content (e.g., content selected based on an overlapping interest between the users, overlapping contacts, overlapping permissions, etc.)”, (Para 0020) “In some examples, user 206 of user device 204 may be a user (e.g., a member) of a social networking platform (e.g., social media platform 208). In these examples, user device 204 may have installed an instance of a social media application 210, which may operate as part of social media platform 208 and through which one or more services provided by social media platform 208 (e.g., via server 202) may be accessible”, (Para 0056) “Card 904 may correspond to a co-viewing feed room with active user participation (e.g., a live media feed conferencing room) that user 206 has permission to join. In response to receiving user input from the third user (e.g., to card 904), media module 212 may add the third user to media feed conferencing room 222 (e.g., as depicted in FIG. 9).”]
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Ellis, Marggraff, and Crawford teach the limitations set forth above, Ellis further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: accessing across the computer network, an indication from the first user, an indication from the second user, or an indication from the third user, an indication of a location of the plurality of content items. [(Para 0036) “In some such examples, social media feed 220 may relate to a particular topic and may be presented (e.g., within a suggested content card) as a suggested feed for user 206 in visual association with the co-viewing initiation element. FIG. 9 depicts a specific example in which social media feed 220 represents a feed associated with the topic ‘Wonderful Places in the World.’”, (Para 0062) “inputs relating to a demographic and/or a region associated with user”]
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Ellis, Marggraff, and Crawford teach the limitations set forth above, Ellis further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: in response to receiving, from the third user, an indication of a reaction to the third content item, causing to be displayed, on the first computing device, the second computing device, and a third computing device of the third user, a modified icon for the third user, the modified icon indicating the reaction from the third user. [(Para 0050) “In some embodiments, media module 212 may receive user input to media conferencing room 222 to submit digital feedback (e.g., to leave a comment and/or select and post an emoji) for a post within social media feed 220. In these examples, media module 212 may show the digital feedback being created and/or added to the post in the display of social media feed 220 within media conferencing room 222 to each participating endpoint.”]
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Ellis, Marggraff, and Crawford teach the limitations set forth above, Ellis further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: causing to be displayed by the computing device of the first user, an icon for the first user, an icon for the second user, an icon for the third user, [(Figures 8 and 9)]
While Ellis teaches icons being displayed of various users, it does not teach but Marggraff does teach:
and a control icon, the control icon indicating which of the first user, the second user, and third user, can indicate to scroll to a next content item. [(Figure 3), (Para 0085) “FIG. 3 illustrates various methods to monitor degree of agreement among shared-experience users to help an initiator of an action, all users, or a subset of users decide when to complete the virtual action (i.e., turning the page)”, (Para 0086) “Further, the identities of the individuals are displayed as thumbnail images (or live video streams) 33a and corresponding names (or nicknames) are displayed to the right 33b of each image.”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the method of displaying user icons taught by Ellis, with the method of indicating control taught by Marggraff. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include the indication of control in the display of user icons and is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill would have recognized the combination were predictable, and yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 9 and 21, the combination of Ellis, Marggraff, and Crawford teach the limitations set forth above, Ellis further teaches:
wherein the reaction is at least one of: a heart, a like, a dislike, a smile, a cry, confusion, or hot, [(Para 0050) “In some embodiments, media module 212 may receive user input to media conferencing room 222 to submit digital feedback (e.g., to leave a comment and/or select and post an emoji) for a post within social media feed”]
and wherein the first content item is at least one of: an image, a video, text, audio, messages, text messages, screens of a social media account, or virtual reality graphics. [(Para 0022) “For example, a newsfeed post may include, without limitation, text, an image, a video, a set of multiple images and/or videos, and/or a link (e.g., to a post, webpage, article, film, etc.)”]
Regarding Claim 10 and 22, the combination of Ellis, Marggraff, and Crawford teach the limitations set forth above, Ellis further teaches:
wherein the computing device is the first computing device or the second computing device. [(Para 0080) “where adding the first and second user to the digital conferencing room includes (1) transmitting a first instance of a streaming interface corresponding to the digital conferencing room to a device of the first user and (2) transmitting a second instance of the streaming interface to a device of a second user”, (Para 0083) “As detailed above, the computing devices and systems described and/or illustrated herein broadly represent any type or form of computing device or system capable of executing computer-readable instructions”]
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Ellis, Marggraff, and Crawford teach the limitations set forth above, Ellis further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: accessing an indication from the first user an indication of a first plurality of content items; accessing an indication from the second user an indication of a second plurality of content items, accessing an indication from the third user an indication of a third plurality of content items, wherein the plurality of content items is comprised of the first plurality of content items, the second plurality of content items, and the third plurality of content items. [(Figures 8-9), (Para 0034) “Media module 212 may receive user input 214 in a variety of ways… In examples in which media module 212 operates within server 202, media module 212 may receive user input 214 by receiving an indication of the user input (e.g., from user device 204)”, (Para 0039) “For example, media module 212 may create a joint social media feed configured for both user 206 and additional user 216 in response to receiving user input from user 206 requesting to co-view and selecting additional user 216. A joint social media feed may include a variety of content (e.g., content selected based on an overlapping interest between the users, overlapping contacts, overlapping permissions, etc.)”, (Para 0056) “In response to receiving user input from the third user (e.g., to card 904), media module 212 may add the third user to media feed conferencing room 222 (e.g., as depicted in FIG. 9)”]
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Ellis, Marggraff, and Crawford teach the limitations set forth above, Ellis further teaches:
wherein the first plurality of content items are images or videos stored on a first user system associated with the first user. [(Para 0022) “For example, a newsfeed post may include, without limitation, text, an image, a video, a set of multiple images and/or videos, and/or a link (e.g., to a post, webpage, article, film, etc.)”]
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Ellis, Marggraff, and Crawford teach the limitations set forth above, Ellis further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: causing to be displayed on the first computing device an indication of a fourth user, on the second computing device the indication of the fourth user, and on the third computing device the indication of the fourth user; and in response to receiving, an indication that the first user, second user, or the third user selects the indication of the fourth user, [The limitations recite indications of multiple users. Adding a fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. user does not functionally change the ability to indicate multiple users and select. For example, figure 9 shows over 20 users; see at least Ellis: (Figures 8-9), (Para 0056) “In certain embodiments, once media conferencing room 222 has been established (e.g., as a live media conferencing room), the disclosed systems may generate a suggestion that an additional user (e.g., a third user) join media feed conferencing room 222 (e.g., in accordance with a privacy setting selected by user 206 for media feed conferencing room”]
generating the group feed to further comprise an association with fourth user application associated with the third user. [(Para 0039) “A joint social media feed may include a variety of content (e.g., content selected based on an overlapping interest between the users, overlapping contacts, overlapping permissions, etc.)”]
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Ellis, Marggraff, and Crawford teach the limitations set forth above, Ellis further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: determining a fourth computing device associated with a fourth user application transgresses a threshold distance from the first computing device, the second computing device, or the third computing device; [The claims recite determining transgression of a threshold distance. The claims are analyzed in light of the specification, but not read directly into the claims. The specification discusses the threshold distance as a threshold proximity distance in which a proximity component can make determinations based on permission. The determination step in the claims is broader than the specificity described in the specification and by the prior art of permissions settings in Ellis; see at least Ellis: (Para 0056) “In certain embodiments, once media conferencing room 222 has been established (e.g., as a live media conferencing room), the disclosed systems may generate a suggestion that an additional user (e.g., a third user) join media feed conferencing room 222 (e.g., in accordance with a privacy setting selected by user 206 for media feed conferencing room 222)”]
and determining the fourth user is a friend of the first user within an interaction platform, a friend of the second user within the interaction platform, and a friend of the third user within the interaction platform. [The claims recite determining relationships between users on the platform; see at least Ellis: (Para 0026) “Also similar to the newsfeed service, the digital stories service may configure a story feed for a particular user that includes connected content (e.g., story posts created by users who are contacts of the particular user or being followed by the particular user), non-connected content, or a determined ratio of connected content to non-connected content”, (Para 0044) “Media conferencing room 222 may be configured according to a variety of user-selected privacy settings. For example, media conferencing room 222 may be configured as a public room (e.g., which any user of social media platform 208 may join) or a private room (e.g., which requires an invitation to join and/or that only a contact of user 206 may be permitted to join). In some examples, media conferencing room 222 may be capped at any designated number of participants. In other examples, media conferencing room 222 may have no participant cap (i.e., may allow any number of participants to be added to the room)”]
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Ellis, Marggraff, and Crawford teach the limitations set forth above, Ellis further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: in response to the first user selecting the indication of fourth user, [The limitations recite indications of multiple users. Adding a fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. user does not functionally change the ability to select indications of users. (Para 0011) “the initiation flow may enable the selection of one or more additional users to invite to join a co-engagement experience.”]
causing to be displayed user interface items on a screen of the first computing device associated with the first user, the user interface items comprising at least one of: an indication of whether the fourth user can control a feed of the plurality of content items, an indication of whether the fourth user can react to content items, or an indication of whether the fourth user can configure group feed parameters. [(Para 0051) “In some examples, media module 212 may enable each user participating in media conferencing room 222 (e.g., user 206 and additional user 216) to interact with social media feed 220 (e.g., to scroll, select posts for display, leave feedback, change to a different social media for co-viewing, etc.). In other examples, only the initiator user who initiated the co-viewing streaming session (e.g., user 206), and/or a user who was given digital permission by the initiator user, may be enabled to interact with social media feed 220”]
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Ellis, Marggraff, and Crawford teach the limitations set forth above, Ellis further teaches:
wherein the group feed is a first group feed, and wherein the operations further comprise: storing the reaction to the first content item as a group feed metadata, the group feed metadata comprising a name; [(Para 0050) “In some embodiments, media module 212 may receive user input to media conferencing room 222 to submit digital feedback (e.g., to leave a comment and/or select and post an emoji) for a post within social media feed 220. In these examples, media module 212 may show the digital feedback being created and/or added to the post in the display of social media feed 220 within media conferencing room 222 to each participating endpoint.”]
and in response to an indication from the first user, second user, and the third user, generating a second group feed comprising an association among the first user application associated with the first user, the second application associated with the second user, the third application associated with the third user, and a plurality of content items, wherein the second group feed is based on the group feed metadata comprising the name. [(Para 0030) “For example, a short-form video may be selected based on a topic the short-form video has been tagged with (e.g., in response to a determination that the particular user is interested in and/or predicted to be interested in the topic)”, (Para 0055) “In some examples, media module 212 may generate and provide a reactive social media feed via media conferencing room 222. In such examples, a machine learning system may select content for the reactive feed based on a variety of factors (e.g., a category of a group of users participating in media conferencing room 222, an interest of the primary user who initiated media conferencing room 222, a combined interest of two or more of the participating users, search parameters provided by the participating users to a search feature such as a hashtag prompt, etc.)”]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Truong, whose telephone number is 703-756-5883. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (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, Nathan Uber SPE can be reached on 571-270-3923. 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.
/B.L.T./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights