DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 4/01/2026, which are in response to USPTO Office Action mailed 10/01/2025. Applicant’s arguments have been considered with the results that follow: THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9-12 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schacht et al. (US PGPUB No. 2013/0246521; Pub. Date: Sep. 19, 2013) in view of Kazan et al. (US PGPUB No. 2012/0151383; Pub. Date: Jun. 14, 2012), Jeremias (US PGPUB No. 2015/0319203; Pub. Date: Nov. 5, 2015) and YI et al. (US PGPUB No. 2018/0239815; Pub. Date: Aug. 23, 2018).
Regarding independent claim 1,
Schacht discloses a method comprising: generating for display, at a user device associated with a user profile of a particular user of a social network, a social network feed comprising a content item of a composite post, wherein the content item depicts a plurality of users of the social network, and wherein the composite post is a combination of a first post of a first user of the plurality of users and a second post of a second user of the plurality of users; See Paragraph [0024], (Disclosing a method for processing news feed stories for users of a social networking system. A user device connects with social networking system 100 in order to request content for display in a news feed user interface 118.) See FIG. 5B & Paragraph [0063], (FIG. 5B illustrates a graphical user interface comprising a news feed having a news feed story 520 about a link to a video on an external website shared by a plurality of users, i.e. generating for display, at a user device associated with a user profile of a particular user of a social network, a social network feed comprising a content item of a composite post (e.g. news feed post 520), wherein the content item depicts a plurality of users of the social network (e.g. While element 520 refers to a link that is being shared, the social networking system is capable of providing other types of posts such as photos as in element 510 where a user’s photo 508 includes a picture of a person), and wherein the composite post is a combination of a first post of a first user of the plurality of users and a second post of a second user of the plurality of users (e.g. news feed post 520).)
Schacht does not disclose a step of identifying a plurality of comments for the composite post;
selecting a first subset of the plurality of comments, comprising comments related to a first subset of the plurality of users that are connected to the particular user via the social network;
and receiving one or more inputs via the user device corresponding to an additional comment on the composite post;
determining that the additional comment is directed to the first user;
and based on the determining: displaying the additional comment with the first post;
and excluding the additional comment from the second post.
Kazan discloses the step of identifying a plurality of comments for the composite post; See FIG. 4 & Paragraphs [0031]-[0032], (FIG. 4 illustrates a presentation 54 of a plurality of shared content items 26 represented as images and a collection of comments from a plurality of users wherein the presentation may comprise content and comments from a plurality of sources.) See Paragraph [0028], (The method includes monitoring content items that may be displayed to a user. The monitoring includes monitoring and retrieval of comments associated with the content items, i.e. identifying a plurality of comments for the composite post (e.g. a content item 26 may be associated with a plurality of comments 28 from various users, which are retrieved for display upon request).)
selecting a first subset of the plurality of comments, comprising comments related to a first subset of the plurality of users that are connected to the particular user via the social network; See Paragraph [0023], (A user of the social network may be associated with one or more contacts. A user and their contacts may submit comments in response to a content item and/or in response to other comments, i.e. selecting a first subset of the plurality of comments (e.g. the retrieved comments for a content item are associated with a user and their contacts) , comprising comments related to a first subset of the plurality of users that are connected to the particular user via the social network (e.g. a contact 16 of a user 14 is a connection between users of the social network).)
and receiving one or more inputs via the user device corresponding to an additional comment on the composite post; See FIG. 4 & Paragraphs [0031]-[0032], (FIG. 4 illustrates a presentation 54 of a plurality of shared content items 26 represented as images and a collection of comments from a plurality of users wherein the presentation may comprise content and comments from a plurality of sources. FIG. 4 illustrates a content source 1 "http://pics.com" as containing comment 1 by user Nancy Baker while other comments such as comment 2 by user Jeff Smith are associated with social network 1 "http://social.net". Additional comments may be received via a comment control 66, i.e. and receiving one or more inputs via the user device corresponding to an additional comment on the composite post (e.g. the presentation is comprised of content from a plurality of sources, i.e. presentation 54 is a composite post that allows for additional comments to be received via comment control 66).)
determining that the additional comment is directed to the first user; See Paragraph [0056], (Content items may be sent to a plurality of social networks or to a default social network by allowing a user 14 to specify one or more social networks 12 within which the content item is to be shared, which may include sending a comment 28 to one or more social networks 12. Note FIG. 4 wherein comments such as comment 3 "Thanks, Jeff" may be directed to a particular user. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a comment may reference any number of users known to the author of the comment, i.e. determining that the additional comment is directed to the first user;)
and based on the determining: displaying the additional comment with the first post; See FIG. 4 & Paragraph [0056], (The system allows users to specify the social network to which a particular content piece will be shared, which includes directing comments to particular social networks. Presentation 54 of FIG. 4 includes a comment control 66 that users may interact with to compose comments that will be delivered to the specified social network, i.e. displaying the additional comment with the first post;
and excluding the additional comment from the second post. See FIG. 4 & Paragraph [0056], (The system allows users to specify the social network to which a particular content piece will be shared, which includes directing comments to particular social networks, i.e. and excluding the additional comment from the second post (e.g. the user may specify to which social network their comment will be directed, which excludes social networks not specified by the user).)
Schacht and Kazan are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, social network management. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Schacht to include the method of delivering comments to specific social networks according to user preferences as disclosed by Kazan. Paragraph [0046] of Kazan discloses that the system may retrieve social media content such as comments and posts at a variety of frequencies in order to more readily retrieve newly shared content items is advantageous as it allows the system to retrieve comments associated with content items more quickly, as these comments may represent a near real-time conversation between users.
Schacht-Kazan does not disclose the step of selecting a second subset of the plurality of comments, wherein the second subset is selected to include comments related to a second subset of the plurality of users that are not connected to the particular user via the social network, and exclude comments from any users that are connected to the particular user via the social network;
and generating for display, at the user device, in association with the composite post: the first subset of the plurality of comments;
Jeremias discloses the step of selecting a second subset of the plurality of comments, wherein the second subset is selected to include comments related to a second subset of the plurality of users that are not connected to the particular user via the social network, and exclude comments from any users that are connected to the particular user via the social network; See FIG. 26 & Paragraph [0189], (Disclosing a system for managing interactive chat sessions for a plurality of users. FIG. 26 illustrates a graphical user interface comprising a filter button 2621 that causes the interface to display a filter command bar with options to filter messages/comments according to a plurality of characteristics, including the source of the message. Users may select to filter messages by non-friend users, friend users, anonymous users, all users, etc., i.e. selecting a second subset of the plurality of comments (e.g. via the filter commands of the graphical user interface), wherein the second subset is selected to include comments related to a second subset of the plurality of users that are not connected to the particular user via the social network (e.g. such as non-friend users ), and exclude comments from any users that are connected to the particular user via the social network (e.g. by filtering messages by source. The examples provided include filtering by non-friend users, friend users, anonymous users, etc.).)
and generating for display, at the user device, in association with the composite post: the first subset of the plurality of comments; See FIG. 26 & Paragraph [0189], (FIG. 26 illustrates a graphical user interface representing a chat page comprising a plurality of comments relating to a topic of interest, in this case luxury cars.) See Paragraph [0196], (The graphical user interface is generated by the user device according to instructions from the computer system used to implement the method, i.e. generating for display, at the user device, in association with the composite post (e.g. the chat page comprises a comments from a plurality of users in relation to a particular topic : the first subset of the plurality of comments (e.g. the graphical user interface displays an initial set of comments that may be filtered via at least filter controls 2621 of FIG. 26;)
Schacht, Kazan and Jeremias are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, social media content delivery. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Schacht-Kazan to include the method of filtering displayed content according to message sources as disclosed by Jeremias. Paragraph [0198] of Jeremias discloses that the variety of filter commands allows users to more readily manage the displayed chat content via a variety of options that provide granular control over the displayed content.
Schacht-Kazan-Jeremias does not disclose the step of generating a recommendation that the second subset of the plurality of comments comprises at least one comment that is of interest to the particular user based on the context of the content item, and wherein the recommendation comprises an option to display the second subset of the plurality of comments;
YI discloses the step of generating a recommendation that the second subset of the plurality of comments comprises at least one comment that is of interest to the particular user based on the context of the content item, and wherein the recommendation comprises an option to display the second subset of the plurality of comments; See Paragraph [0061], (Disclosing a method for performing sentiment analysis based on ambiguity analysis to deliver relevant content to a user. The system comprises an I/O module 103 comprising extension unit 404. Extension unit 404 may push information to a user including recommending comments of information to the user based on a user' subscription status. For example, a user may subscribe to information containing particular keywords via extension unit 404 which also provides a subscription function. Information is pushed to a user after a sentiment analysis is performed based on the user's subscriptions. Note [0054]-[0055] wherein sentiment analysis is performed to determine a sentiment type of a sentence or article, i.e. a recommendation that the second subset of the plurality of comments comprises at least one comment that is of interest to the particular user based on the context of the content item (e.g. the system may push content to a user based on a user's interests as indicated by sentiment analysis based on the user's subscriptions ), and wherein the recommendation comprises an option to display the second subset of the plurality of comments (e.g. by providing a user with subscription options via extension unit 404's subscription function. A user’s subscription to a particular keyword allows the system to push information including comments relevant to said keyword to the user) ;)
Schacht, Kazan, Jeremias and YI are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, content delivery. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Schacht-Kazan-Jeremias to include the method of providing recommended comments to a user based on user subscriptions as disclosed by YI. Paragraph [0046] of YI discloses that the system may assess the relevance between acquired information and information needed by a user in order to transmit information to a user. This process ensures that users receive output that matches a user’s needs at any given moment based on subscriptions, habits, etc., thereby providing a tailored experience.
Regarding dependent claim 9,
As discussed above with claim 1, Schacht-Kazan-Jeremias-Yi discloses all of the limitations.
Jeremias further discloses the step wherein in response to receiving an input at the user device corresponding to the option to display the second subset of the plurality of comments modifying the composite post to display the second subset of the plurality of comments. See FIG. 26 & Paragraph [0198], (Disclosing a system for managing interactive chat sessions for a plurality of users. FIG. 26 illustrates a graphical user interface comprising a filter button 2621 that causes the interface to display a filter command bar with options to filter messages/comments according to a plurality of characteristics, including the source of the message. Users may select to filter messages by non-friend users, friend users, anonymous users, all users, etc., which instructs the computer system to display an updated and filtered list of comments, i.e. in response to receiving an input at the user device corresponding to the option to display the second subset of the plurality of comments (e.g. the filter command for displaying messages from non-friend users) modifying the composite post to display the second subset of the plurality of comments (e.g. the computer system modifies the graphical user interface to satisfy the filter criteria)
Regarding dependent claim 10,
As discussed above with claim 1, Schacht-Kazan-Jeremias-YI discloses all of the limitations.
Jeremias further discloses the step wherein each user of the plurality of users is associated with a respective user profile, and wherein the particular user is connected to the first subset of the plurality of users via the social network due to the user profile of the particular user following each user profile of the first subset of the plurality of users. See Paragraph [0163], (Process 1800 includes storing a user account for each user, i.e. wherein each user of the plurality of users is associated with a respective user profile, including element such as a real name of a user, a username, user bookmarks, etc. as well as a list of user friends indicating a list of users that a user has saved.) See Paragraph [0212], (Users may access a friends page for displaying a list of other users who are friends of the user that is maintained in a friends database, i.e. wherein the particular user is connected to the first subset of the plurality of users via the social network due to the user profile of the particular user following each user profile of the first subset of the plurality of users (e.g. Note Paragraph [0223] wherein the system may provide a user with a friend’s selected keywords during a search, i.e. the user is connected to other users and may share keywords to perform searches).)
Regarding independent claim 11,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of independent claim 1 directed to a computer system and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 19,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 9 directed to a computer system and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 20,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 10 directed to a computer system and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schacht in view of Kazan, Jeremias and YI as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grant et al. (US PGPUB No. 2018/0324126; Pub. Date: Nov. 8, 2018).Regarding dependent claim 3,
As discussed above with claim 1, Schacht-Kazan-Jeremias-YI discloses all of the limitations.
Schacht-Kazan-Jeremias-YI does not disclose the step wherein: a first user of the plurality of depicted users uploaded a first post to the social network comprising the content item and the first subset of the plurality of comments;
and a second user of the plurality of depicted users uploaded a second post to the social network comprising the content item and the second subset of the plurality of comments.
Grant discloses the step wherein: a first user of the plurality of depicted users uploaded a first post to the social network comprising the content item and the first subset of the plurality of comments; See Abstract & Paragraph [0003], (Disclosing a method of searching a social media platform by identifying a set of duplicate images including a first image that was posted to the platform by a first user and a second image posted to the platform by a second user. An example is provided wherein a user, Julie, posts a photo on Facebook which includes her mother and father. A second user, Julie's mother also posts the same photo and tags the first user, Julie.) See Paragraph [0030], (The process of analyzing the user posts includes analyzing any comments associated with the first image and the second image, i.e. a first user of the plurality of depicted users uploaded a first post to the social network comprising the content item and the first subset of the plurality of comments;
and a second user of the plurality of depicted users uploaded a second post to the social network comprising the content item and the second subset of the plurality of comments. See Abstract & Paragraph [0003], (Disclosing a method of searching a social media platform by identifying a set of duplicate images including a first image that was posted to the platform by a first user and a second image posted to the platform by a second user. An example is provided wherein a user, Julie, posts a photo on Facebook which includes her mother and father. A second user, Julie's mother also posts the same photo and tags the first user, Julie.) See Paragraph [0030], (The process of analyzing the user posts includes analyzing any comments associated with the first image and the second image, i.e. a second user of the plurality of depicted users uploaded a second post to the social network comprising the content item and the second subset of the plurality of comments.
Schacht, Kazan, Jeremias, YI and Grant are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, content delivery optimization. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Schacht-Kazan-Jeremias-YI to include the method of detecting duplicate images in social media posts as disclosed by Grant. Paragraph [0037] of Grant discloses that the method of FIG. 1 improves and enhances the operation of the computer by providing the computer with a set of programming instructions to automatically handle duplicate images in a social or many-user environment without losing any of the social characteristics of the platform.
Regarding dependent claim 4,
As discussed above with claim 3, Schacht-Kazan-Jeremias-YI-Grant discloses all of the limitations.
Grant further discloses the step of determining that the content item of the first post and the second post are duplicative, See FIG. 1 & Paragraph [0018], (FIG. 1 illustrates a method for detecting duplicate images on a social media platform. The method comprises step 101 where a social media platform is searched by the computer to identify a set of duplicate images comprising a first image that was posted to the social media platform by a first user and a second image that was posted to the social media platform by a second user, where the second image is a duplicate of the first image, i.e. determining that the content item of the first post and the second post are duplicative.)
and generating, in response to determining that the content item of the first post and the second post are duplicative, the composite post with the plurality of comments for the content item comprising the first subset and the second subset of the plurality of comments. See FIG. 1 & Paragraph [0032], (The method of FIG. 1 comprises step 107 wherein the computer system consolidates one or more social media interactions associated with the first image with one or more social media interactions associated with the second image to generate a single set of social media interactions for the consolidated image, i.e. generating, in response to determining that the content item of the first post and the second post are duplicative (e.g. step 101 of determining that the 1st and 2nd images are duplicates), the composite post with the plurality of comments for the content item comprising the first subset and the second subset of the plurality of comments (e.g. social media interactions include likes and comments).)
Schacht, Kazan, Jeremias, YI and Grant are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, content delivery optimization. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Schacht-Kazan-Jeremias-YI to include the method of detecting duplicate images in social media posts as disclosed by Grant. Paragraph [0037] of Grant discloses that the method of FIG. 1 improves and enhances the operation of the computer by providing the computer with a set of programming instructions to automatically handle duplicate images in a social or many-user environment without losing any of the social characteristics of the platform.
Regarding dependent claim 5,
As discussed above with claim 4, Schacht-Kazan-Jeremias-YI-Grant discloses all of the limitations.
Schacht further discloses the step wherein determining that the content item of the first post and the second post are duplicative comprises: determining whether the first post and the second post were created by at least one of the same device, storing the first post and the second post with the same filename, or storing the first post and the second post with the same metadata tags. See Paragraph [0050], (The system comprises news feed story highlighting module 308 configured to combine news feed stories that are about the same topic or refer to the same link. The system may analyze keywords included in the posted content items to determine whether a plurality of posts are redundant and may be combined, i.e. storing the first post and the second post (e.g. posts are stored in News Feed Story Store 218 as illustrated in FIG. 2) with the same metadata tags (e.g. the system may determine keywords included in content items that comprise the stored content in order to determine whether to combine said news feed stories).)
Regarding dependent claim 6,
As discussed above with claim 4, Schacht-Kazan-Jeremias-YI-Grant discloses all of the limitations.
Grant further discloses the step wherein determining that the content item of the first post and the second post are duplicative comprises: determining that the first post and the second post are duplicative by using object recognition on the content item of each post. See Paragraphs [0020]-[0021], (The process of identifying duplicate images may comprise identifying a group of suspect duplicate images by analyzing at least one social media data similarity between the first and second images. The social media data similarity may comprise an individual, a group of individuals, an object, or a group of objects being associated with a tag in both the first and second images, wherein the tag comprises a label attached by a user. A pixel-by-pixel comparison of a group comprising the first and second images is also conducted to determine whether or not any images in the group of suspect duplicate images are in fact duplicates, i.e. determining that the first post and the second post are duplicative by using object recognition on the content item of each post (e.g. via the analysis of social media data similarity).)
Schacht, Kazan, Jeremias, YI and Grant are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, content delivery optimization. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Schacht-Kazan-Jeremias-YI to include the method of detecting duplicate images in social media posts as disclosed by Grant. Paragraph [0037] of Grant discloses that the method of FIG. 1 improves and enhances the operation of the computer by providing the computer with a set of programming instructions to automatically handle duplicate images in a social or many-user environment without losing any of the social characteristics of the platform.
Regarding dependent claim 13,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 3 directed to a computer system and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 14,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 4 directed to a computer system and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 15,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 5 directed to a computer system and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 16,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 6 directed to a computer system and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schacht in view of Kazan, Jeremias and YI as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stahl et al. (US PGPUB No. 2020/0066046; Pub. Date: Feb. 27, 2020).
Regarding dependent claim 7,
As discussed above with claim 7, Schacht-Kazan-Jeremias-YI discloses all of the limitations.
Schacht-Kazan-Jeremias-YI does not disclose the step wherein the composite post comprises at least one trigger to interact with the composite post and wherein the at least one trigger is associated with at least one of the plurality of users depicted in the content item.
Stahl discloses the step wherein the composite post comprises at least one trigger to interact with the composite post and wherein the at least one trigger is associated with at least one of the plurality of users depicted in the content item. See Paragraph [0076], (Disclosing a method for rendering an augmented-reality environment on a display associated with a first computing device associated with a first user. The system may display AR content item including posts on an online social network shared by an author user. A user post may include a selfie photo associated with text. A user may explicitly define privacy settings indicating who has access to the post. Note [0135] wherein a privacy setting for an object may specify how said object may be viewed, shared, modified, copied, etc. within the online social network, i.e. wherein the composite post comprises at least one trigger to interact with the composite post and wherein the at least one trigger is associated with at least one of the plurality of users depicted in the content item (e.g. a user may share a post on the online social network, such as a selfie).)
Schacht, Kazan, Jeremias, YI and Stahl are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, content delivery optimization. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Schacht-Kazan-Jeremias-YI to include the step of managing user interactions with posts such as selfies as disclosed by Stahl. Doing so would allow users to indicate privacy settings such that only users that share a social connection with them are able to interact with content they publish. This contributes to the user's privacy and safety by ensuring their posts are only presented to users that have been previously approved.
Regarding dependent claim 8,
As discussed above with claim 7, Schacht-Kazan-Jeremias-YI-Stahl discloses all of the limitations.
Stahl further discloses the step wherein the at least one trigger determines an action to apply to the composite post, wherein the action is applying at least one of a like, comment, or share to the composite post. See Paragraph [0076], (Users may share posts such as selfies according to privacy settings associated with said post, i.e. wherein the at least one trigger determines an action to apply to the composite post, wherein the action is applying at least one of a like, comment, or share to the composite post.)
Schacht, Kazan¸ Jeremias, YI and Stahl are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, content delivery optimization. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Schacht-Kazan-Jeremias-YI to include the step of managing user interactions with posts such as selfies as disclosed by Stahl. Doing so would allow users to indicate privacy settings such that only users that share a social connection with them are able to interact with content they publish. This contributes to the user's privacy and safety by ensuring their posts are only presented to users that have been previously approved.
Regarding dependent claim 17,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 7 directed to a computer system and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 18,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 8 directed to a computer system and is rejected under similar rationale.
Examiner’s Input
The following represents the examiner’s input relating to potential claim amendments and/or clarifications that would likely overcome the currently cited prior art and/or overcome a particular rejection:
Regarding independent claim 1,
Claim 1 currently recites the following limitation:
and a recommendation that the second subset of the plurality of comments comprises at least one comment that is of interest to the particular user based on the context of the content item, and wherein the recommendation comprises an option to display the second subset of the plurality of comments;
Paragraph [0021] of Applicant’s Specification describes the process of selecting which comments to display on a combined post as follows:
“If system 200 determines that a set of images can be unified (e.g., combined), then system 200 may combine the comments of each post. For example, the comments may be classified and presented per poster of the image in a sequence rather than as a series of individual posts. In an illustrative example, a photograph may include five celebrities, and a user might follow only two out of the five. System 200 may then only show the comments for the two celebs with a recommendation that there are comments from other celebrities that the user does not follow but would be of interest in the context of the content the user is consuming (e.g., after the user opts in, such comments would also be shown).”
Which describes system 200 as allowing users to opt in to receiving comments from specific groups of users via a “follow” function. While dependent claim 10 describes a connection between users based on a follower status, neither claim 1 nor claim 10 describe the system as being able to filter or selectively provide comments on combined content based on whether a first user follows a second user.
The examiner suggests clarifying the limitation above to include the process of recommending comments to be displayed on a unified/combined post based on the user opting in to receiving content associated with other users.
While YI discloses a subscription process associated with receiving comments relating to subscribed keywords, the system of YI does not disclose the subscription process relating to comments authored by second users that a first user follows.
Similar amendments are recommended for independent claim 11.
Any amendments would likely require further search and/or consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fernando M Mari whose telephone number is (571)272-2498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Ann J. Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/FMMV/Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights