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 .
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite “receiving user instructions to create a donor private group …”, “receiving user command creating a recipient private group …”, “comparing … posts …”, and “extending availability of at least one post …”. These limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “control circuitry”. For example, but for the “control circuitry” language, these steps in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually creating a donor private group and a recipient private group, comparing posts in donor private groups with posts in recipient private group, and if they are similar, extending posts in the donor private group to members of the recipient group. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements - using a control circuitry to perform these steps. The use of a control circuitry is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer device performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does 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 element of “control circuitry” is merely for the purpose of data gathering and/or insignificant extra-solution activity that 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the step of determining “similarity measure” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing this step. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 13-14, the step “sending an invitation” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing this step. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the step of “inviting a member …” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing this step. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 16-17, the steps of determining “cross-relevance measure” and “engagement measure” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing this step. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the additional element of “a machine-learning model” to identify similarity is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer device performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the step of “providing an option … to select the recipient private group …”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing this step. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the step of “cross-posting …” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing this step. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloane et al. (USPG 2024/0193232, hereinafter Sloane) in view of Voss (USPG 2015/0347463, hereinafter Voss).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Sloane discloses a method and system of operating a distributed information system, comprising:
a donor private group for sharing posts exclusively between members of the donor private group (figure 1, multiple groups);
a recipient private group for sharing posts exclusively between members of the recipient private group (figure 1, multiple groups);
comparing one or more posts in the donor private group to one or more posts in the recipient private group to determine a cross-relevance measure between the posts in the two groups (paragraph 24, comparing posts in a first group with post in a second group to determine if they are similar, and if so, propagating the post in the first group to the second group); and
based on the cross-relevance measure, extending availability of at least one post from a member of the donor private group to one or more members of the recipient private group (paragraph 24, comparing posts in a first group with post in a second group to determine if they are similar, and if so, propagating the post in the first group to the second group).
Sloane fails to explicitly disclose, however, Voss teaches receiving user instructions to create a private donor group and recipient private group (paragraph 37, “The private group creation module 195” enable the user to create private groups to share posts).
Since Sloane and Voss are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of creating social network groups. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Sloane further discloses wherein the cross-relevance measure is based on a semantic similarity measure between the posts in the two groups (paragraph 24, similarity measure between two posts).
Regarding claims 3-5 and 13-15, Sloane further disclose a process for sharing post in the first group with the second group (process in figure 3 and/or paragraphs 60-61). Sloane fails to explicitly disclose, however, Voss teaches extending availability comprises sending an invitation to a member of the donor private group to cross-post the at least one post to the recipient private group (paragraphs 54-57, “The creator or owner of a newly created collaborative media group can then invite other users to join and become members of the group who can then post and share media within the group”; inviting member of another group to join the current group to view or make post); wherein extending availability comprises sending an invitation to the donor private group to send the at least one post to the recipient private group (paragraphs 54-57, “The creator or owner of a newly created collaborative media group can then invite other users to join and become members of the group who can then post and share media within the group”; inviting member of another group to join the current group to view or make post); wherein extending availability comprises inviting a member of the recipient private group to join the donor private group (paragraphs 54-57, “The creator or owner of a newly created collaborative media group can then invite other users to join and become members of the group who can then post and share media within the group”; inviting member of another group to join the current group to view or make post)
Since Sloane and Voss are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of sending invitations to members of other groups to join this group. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 16-17, Sloane further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the cross-relevance measure is further based on an engagement measure associated with one or more posts in the donor private group (process in figure 4 and/or paragraph 64, “the first post may contain content that is not interesting for members of the first group, but may be engaging and interesting for members of a second group. Comparing the first post to trending posts from other groups may identify when such a situation exists. Illustrated processing block 328 propagates the first post to any group that has a trending post having a similarity metric from the similarity metrics above a threshold”); wherein the engagement measure is based on a combination of the number of views, likes, and responses to the one or more posts in the donor private group (paragraphs 22 and 30-31, “the first post 104a may be selected based on whether the first post 104a is trending (e.g., a number of likes meets a like threshold, a number of views meets a view threshold, a number of comments meets a comment threshold, etc.)”).
Regarding claims 8, 10, 18, and 20, Sloane further discloses wherein the cross-relevance measure is determined by a machine learning model trained to identify semantic similarities between posts in different groups (paragraphs 30-31, “the AI agent 128 may detect trending posts of the first post 108a-N post 108n that have interest levels above a threshold (e.g., as measured by interactions measured through viewing time, likes, reshares, comments, etc.). The interest levels are interest levels of users of the second group 106 in each of the first post 108a-N post 108n”); and wherein extending availability comprises automatically cross-posting the at least one post from the donor private group to the recipient private group based on a threshold cross-relevance measure (paragraph 24, comparing posts in a first group with post in a second group to determine if they are similar, and if so, propagating the post in the first group to the second group).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Sloan fails to explicitly disclose, however, Voss teaches wherein extending availability comprises providing an option for a member of the donor private group to manually select the recipient private group for cross-posting their post (paragraphs 54-57, “The creator or owner of a newly created collaborative media group can then invite other users to join and become members of the group who can then post and share media within the group”; inviting member of another group to join the current group to view or make post).
Since Sloane and Voss are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of allowing the user to manually select a group to cross-post messages. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Singh (USPG 2025/0217898) teaches a method of creating private groups to make and share posts that is considered pertinent to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN X VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
/HUYEN X VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights