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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph numbers are not accurate and most paragraphs are numbered as “[00.]” or “[0.]”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 claims are directed to a judicial exception, in this case the exception is an abstract idea (see MPEP 2016.03), without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 11 and 20
Step 2A – Prong One:
The limitations of these claims recite the following:
identifying content associated with a subject of interest;
detecting that a putative vilification of the subject of interest is underway;
determining that a critical vilification juncture is reached;
generating a remediating action in accordance with the putative vilification
These limitations recite an abstract ideas, specifically mental process on a generic computer or in a computer environment (see MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)) because the monitoring, identification and remediation of putative vilification content could be done with the help of a computer. Alternatively, these activities can also be classified as certain methods of organizing human activity, as these are the functions a public relations reputation consultant would regularly perform.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The scope of the independent claim limitations incorporate the following additional elements:
a processor, and a memory
semantic similarity analysis, continuously monitoring by the processor, social media content data, and linguistic framework with a sentiment identification component
These additional elements listed above, or combination of these elements, amount to nothing more than simply reciting the abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it’, MPEP 2106.05(f). The system elements, a processor and a memory, to implement the abstract idea amount to mere instructions to apply it using generic computer components. Further additional elements that recite generic computer-implemented steps to detect putative social media content, semantic similarity analysis, continuous monitoring and a linguistic framework, are recited at a high level of generality amount to nothing more than instructions to apply the abstract idea without any improvement to technology, technical field, or to the functioning of the computer itself.
Therefore, the additional elements, whether evaluated individually or in combination, fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the combination of additional elements is evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea of mitigating the impact of putative vilification content associated with a subject of interest. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims –
Claims 2 and 12 further recite the abstract idea in that they are directed to aspects of social media content. The recitation of maintaining the state of data in an online form without restriction on how the state is maintained and with no description of the mechanism for maintaining the state describes "the effect or result dissociated from any method by which maintaining the state is accomplished" and does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely states that the abstract idea should be applied to achieve a desired result.
Claims 3 and 13 further recite the abstract idea in that they are directed to aspects of the subject of interest. The recitation of maintaining the state of data in an online form without restriction on how the state is maintained and with no description of the mechanism for maintaining the state describes "the effect or result dissociated from any method by which maintaining the state is accomplished" and does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely states that the abstract idea should be applied to achieve a desired result.
Claims 4 and 14 recite the additional element of utilizing a trained machine learning model to determine the sentiment intensity rating. This additional element, whether considered individually or in combination, amounts to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this additional element does not add significantly more.
Claims 5 and 15 recite the additional element of utilizing geometric pattern analysis to determine the critical vilification juncture. This additional element, whether considered individually or in combination, amounts to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this additional element does not add significantly more.
Claim 6 and 16 recite the additional element of utilizing geometric pattern analysis to determine the critical vilification juncture. This additional element, whether considered individually or in combination, amounts to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this additional element does not add significantly more.
Claim 7 and 17 recite the following additional elements: a processor, a fact check engine, as well as accessing, receiving, and transmitting data elements from the fact check engine. These additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, amount to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements do not add significantly more.
Claims 8 and 18 further recite the abstract idea by identifying one or more sources of dissemination and retaining time stamped information associated with the sources. The claim limitation is further directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 9 and 19 further recite the abstract idea by identifying content with a sarcasm sentiment classification. The claim limitation is further directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 10 further recites the abstract idea by replacing positive and negative sentiment classifications to detect sarcasm. The claim limitation is further directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 11-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Anders et al, US Patent Application Publication US 2020/0065417 A1, herein referred to as “Anders”.
Regarding Claims 1, 11 and 20, Anders teaches the following limitations:
identifying, based at least in part upon a semantic similarity analysis performed in a processor of the computing system, content associated with a subject of interest, the content defined in accordance with at least one text character string that is included within social media content data received at the computing system, the content including a sentiment expressive usage associated with the subject of interest, the sentiment expressive usage characterized in accordance with at least one sentiment parameter;
(¶0027 and Fig. 1 – a class model uses the results from the topic analysis, tone analysis and message velocity analysis modules on a per-individual basis; see also ¶0068 – the tone analysis module conducts an emotion/tone analysis on social media content that outputs a sentiment score as well as text relevancy scores of particular keywords)
detecting, in accordance with continuously monitoring by the processor,
(¶0053 and Fig. 1 – the application monitors social media content that arrives at the network server; see also ¶0006 – social media messages are analyzed using processor and a memory)
that a putative vilification of the subject of interest is underway upon accessing, by the processor, a linguistic framework that includes a sentiment identification component stored in a memory of the computing system and a sentiment intensity rating associated with the at least one sentiment parameter;
(¶0033 and Fig. 1– a class model is used to classify new content by identifying certain keywords to combine the keyword scores, sentiment scores and emotion scores into a composite toxicity score for each content)
determining, responsive to detecting the putative vilification, that a critical vilification juncture is reached
(¶0034 – negative content to another user in the cyberbullying class where all the content exceeds a frequency threshold, it is determined that targeting is likely taking place)
The applicant’s specification recites that among the invention solutions against vilifying online behavior is cyberbullying mitigation
responsive to the determining, generating, by the processor of the computing system, a remediating action in accordance with the putative vilification
(¶0036 and Fig. 1 – additional bad behavior from a user or a group of users related to a bullying target could result in more remedial measure, such as banning periods or even a permanent ban from posting content)
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Anders teaches all of the limitations above. Anders teaches the following limitation:
wherein the social media content comprises one or more of: a hashtag, a twitter handle, an emoticon, at least a portion of a website content, a text string produced via a speech to text conversion of at least a portion of an audio file, a message exchange, an image, and at least a video portion
(examiner finds that the claim limitation recites data and is not considered a method as recited in the preamble; however, for the purposes of compact prosecution, Anders teaches: ¶0004 – the contents of social media posts include natural language conversations, images, etc.)
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Anders teaches all of the limitations above. Anders teaches the following limitation:
wherein the subject of interest comprises at least one of a product name, a product feature, a brand name, an entity name, a name of an individual, and a name of an organizational group
(examiner finds that the claim limitation recites data and is not considered a method as recited in the preamble; however, for the purposes of compact prosecution, Anders teaches: ¶0027 – the class model uses results from the topic analysis, tone analysis and message velocity analysis on a per-individual, per-forum, or another appropriate basis)
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Anders teaches all of the limitations above. Anders teaches the following limitation:
wherein the sentiment intensity rating is determined based on a sentiment analysis performed in accordance with a trained machine learning model in conjunction with the social media content
(¶0033 – a class model is used to classify new content by identifying certain keywords to combine the keyword scores, sentiment scores and emotion scores into a composite toxicity score for each content; see also ¶0025 – commercially available natural language understanding services analyze unstructured content)
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Anders teaches all of the limitations above. Anders teaches the following limitations:
wherein the critical vilification juncture is determined in accordance with a sentiment intensity threshold that is established in accordance with a predetermined sentiment intensity rating,
(¶0034 and Fig. 8 – a trend prediction is determined based on the composite toxicity score and the activity of users, including posting at a rate that exceeds a threshold posting rate or posting content that includes references that exceed the reference frequency threshold)
a geometric pattern analysis of a trend in the sentiment intensity rating over a period of time, and a rate of growth of a community that receives the social media content
(¶0068-69 and Fig. 3 – the topic analysis module produces a topic model and key terms associated with the topic model; the tone analysis module determines the tone or emotion score for a given social media post and text relevance scores; the velocity analysis module models the timestamp differences across the social media content; the latent class analysis module; see also ¶0087 – the application determines both the change and the rate of change of the frequency of posts; the application uses the toxicity score and post frequency trends to predict a toxicity trend for a particular user)
One of ordinary skill in the art would define geometric pattern analysis to analyze repeating, predictable shapes and symmetries. The applicant specification (reference page 23, second paragraph) defines geometric pattern analysis a determination of a rate of change along a 2-dimensional curve with sentiment intensity rating plotted against measured time to identify an inflection point, a global or local maximum or a global or local minimum.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Anders teaches all of the limitations above. Anders teaches the following limitations:
wherein the geometric pattern analysis comprises at least one of
(i) a rate of change of the sentiment intensity rating over at least a portion of the period of time
(ii) a change in slope of the sentiment intensity rating over the at least a portion of the period of time that is associated with one of an inflection point, a global or local maximum, and a local or global minimum established in a two- dimensional plot of the sentiment intensity rating over the at least a portion of the period of time
(¶0087 and Fig. 8 – the application determines both the change and the rate of change of the frequency of posts; the application uses the toxicity score and post frequency trends to forecast a toxicity trend for a particular user)
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 7-8, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anders et al, US Patent Application Publication US 2020/0065417 A1, herein referred to as “Anders”, and further in view of Myslinski et al, US Patent Application Publication US 2013/0151240 A1, herein referred to as “Myslinski”.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Anders teaches all of the limitations above. However, Anders does not fully teach, but Myslinski does teach the following limitations:
accessing, by the processor of the computing system, a fact check engine receiving a fact check result from the fact check engine in accordance with the putative vilification
(¶0232 and Fig. 5 – the fact checker checks for and indicates defamation, slander, libel, disparaging comments, etc.)
transmitting, to a community that receives the social media content data over the distributed computing network, a rebuttal of the putative vilification based at least in part on the fact check result, the rebuttal being directed to one or more assertions associated with the putative vilification regarding the subject of interest
(¶0232 – a disparaging remark is detected and reported to the target of the comment; see also ¶0246 – an automatic rebuttal can post the user’s comments to rebut with a contradictory remark to help prevent bullying)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of fact checking and rebutting an inappropriate post, as disclosed by Myslinski, to the known method of using sentiment analysis to determine putative vilification, as disclosed by Anders. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of fact check and rebutting an inappropriate post because it would have further improved the automatic response functionality of the Anders teaching to address putative vilification. See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Anders and Myslinski teach all of the limitations above. Anders teaches the following limitations:
identifying one or more sources of dissemination of the one or more assertions associated with the putative vilification regarding the subject of interest
(¶0034 – a small group of users posting content classified as cyberbullying to another user)
time stamped information associated with the one or more sources, at least some portions of the social media content,
(¶0026 – to measure how quickly an interaction is proceeding, the time differences between timestamps of social media content is classified into known distribution types)
However, Anders does not fully teach, but Myslinski does teach the following limitations:
time stamped information associated with the one or more sources, at least some portions of the social media content, and the fact check results
(¶0312 – fact check identification information can include channel or station, a timestamp among other identifiers)
retaining, as potential evidence in a reputation vilification legal or administrative proceeding, time stamped information associated with the one or more sources, at least some portions of the social media content, and the fact check results
(¶0204 – each time a post is flagged, a timestamp is made which is used to display the corrective comments; see also ¶0312)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of fact checking, creating timestamps for retaining information, as disclosed by Myslinski, to the known method of using sentiment analysis to determine putative vilification, as disclosed by Anders. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of fact check and timestamps creation because it would have further improved the message velocity analysis functionality of the Anders teaching to address putative vilification. See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claims 9-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anders et al, US Patent Application Publication US 2020/0065417 A1, herein referred to as “Anders”, and further in view of Myslinski et al, US Patent Application Publication US 2013/0151240 A1, herein referred to as “Myslinski” and further in view of Ioannou et al, US Patent Application Publication US 2017/0250931 A1, herein referred to as “Ioannou”.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Anders and Myslinski teach all of the limitations above. Anders teaches the following limitation:
wherein the at least one sentiment parameter comprises a sarcasm sentiment classification, and further comprising identifying the putative vilification based at least in part upon replacing the sarcasm sentiment classification with one of a contrary and an opposite sentiment classification
(¶0018 – Andes recites that sarcasm is on off the ways that people interact with one another online and could lead to small levels of toxicity that could grow over time if left unchecked)
However Anders does not fully teach based at least in part upon replacing the sarcasm sentiment classification with one of a contrary and an opposite sentiment classification, but Ioannou teaches based at least in part upon replacing the sarcasm sentiment classification with one of a contrary and an opposite sentiment classification:
(¶0130 – with posts that are deemed sarcastic, analysis takes into account the use of positive words to express negative sentiment and vice versa)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of sarcasm detection, as disclosed by Ioannou, to the known method of using sentiment analysis to determine putative vilification, as disclosed by Anders. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of determining sarcasm as an additional method to identify social media posts that otherwise may not have been identified as toxic.
Regarding Claim 10, Anders, Myslinski, and Ioannou teach all of the limitations above. Anders does not teach, however Ioannou teaches the following limitation:
wherein the at least one sentiment parameter comprises a sarcasm sentiment classification, and further comprising identifying the putative vilification based at least in part upon replacing the sarcasm sentiment classification with one of a contrary and an opposite sentiment classification
(¶0130 – with posts that are deemed sarcastic, analysis takes into account the use of positive words to express negative sentiment and vice versa)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the known technique of sarcasm detection, as disclosed by Ioannou, to the known method of using sentiment analysis to determine putative vilification, as disclosed by Anders. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of determining sarcasm as an additional method to identify social media posts that otherwise may not have been identified as toxic.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
be directed to RAHUL SHARMA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3058. The examiner can
normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8-5 CT.
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 can be reached at (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.
/RAHUL SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626