DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office Action is in response to application 18/624937. This communication is the first action on the merits. Claims 2-21 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant filed an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) on 4/2/2024. This filing is in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97.
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statement is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), a copy of the PTOL -1449 form, initialed and dated by the examiner, is attached to the instant office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Langi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(1)(1) - 706.02(1)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely on line using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. US 11080730 B2, claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. US 9305303 B2, as well as claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11966935 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2-21 of the instant application are obvious over the subject matter recited in claims 1-19 of the ’730 patent, claims 1-21 of the ’303 patent, and claims 1-20 of the ’935 patent. The portions that are not identical contain only minor changes or broadening of the claim language which are well known to a person of ordinary skill.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Here, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, Examiner finds that the Applicant invented a method and system for tracking audience sentiment by obtaining sentiment feedback during a plurality of time windows. Examiner formulates an abstract idea analysis, following the framework described in the MPEP, as follows:
Step 1: The claims are directed to a statutory category, namely a "method" (claims 16-20) and "system" (claims 2-15 and 21).
Step 2A - Prong 1: The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely, regarding claim 2:
…
… display to at least some of the viewers, the sentiment feedback graphical user interface including a plurality of sentiment feedback options that are activatable during the multimedia presentation;
receiving, based on activation of the plurality of sentiment feedback options, sentiment input data from clients during the multimedia presentation and storing the sentiment input data to the non-transitory computer-readable medium;
obtaining a plurality of time windows with respect to the multimedia presentation;
for each corresponding time window of the plurality of time windows, obtaining sentiment inputs for different clients that are associated with sentiment input data for the corresponding time window;
for each corresponding time window of the plurality of time windows, modifying at least some of the sentiment inputs based on 1) weighting against other client sentiment input(s) from different clients within the corresponding time window, and 2) weighting against other sentiment input(s) from the same client that are not within the corresponding time window;
calculating a sentiment result for each corresponding time window based at least in part on modification of at least some of the sentiment inputs;
…
including a time graph that includes multiple sentiment indicators that each correspond to a given time window of the plurality of time windows and are based on the calculated sentiment result for the given time window.
Independent claims 16 and 21 recite substantially similar claim language.
Dependent claims 3-15, and 17-20 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claims 2, 16, and 21 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s) to particular data characterization and/or additional data analyses performed as part of the abstract idea.
The limitations in claims 2-21 above falling well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts, specifically the claims are found to correspond to the category of:
"Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)" as the limitations identified above are directed to tracking audience sentiment by obtaining sentiment feedback during a plurality of time windows and thus is a method of organizing human activity including at least commercial or business interactions or relations and/or a management of user personal behavior; and/or
"Mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)" as the limitations identified above include mere data observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, e.g. including tracking audience sentiment by obtaining sentiment feedback during a plurality of time windows, which is capable of being performed mentally and/or using pen and paper.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 2-21 are found to clearly be directed to the abstract idea identified above because the claims, as a whole, fail to integrate the claimed judicial exception into a practical application, specifically the claims recite the additional elements of:
" causing a sentiment feedback graphical user interface to be communicated for display to at least some of the viewers… causing a sentiment result graphical user interface to be displayed on at least one computing device, " (claim 2, 16, and, 21) " receiving, as part of the sentiment result graphical user interface, a selection, based on input provided by a user, of a sentiment indicator of the multiple sentiment indicators; and based on selection the sentiment indicator, automatically displaying, as part of the sentiment result graphical user interface, a part of the multimedia presentation that corresponds to the selected sentiment indicator. " (claims 14 and 19), " receiving, as part of the sentiment result graphical user interface, a selection, based on input provided by a user, of a portion of the multimedia presentation; and based on portion of the multimedia presentation that is selected, automatically highlighting, as part of the sentiment result graphical user interface, one of the multiple sentiment indicators that encompasses the selected portion of the multimedia presentation " (claims 15 and 20), however the aforementioned elements directed to the receiving of user input/selection of data to view via a dashboard and displaying corresponding data via the dashboard merely amount to generic GUI elements of a general purpose computer used to "apply" the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract idea of tracking audience sentiment by obtaining sentiment feedback during a plurality of time windows to a particular field of use/technological environment of a GUI dashboard (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore the GUI dashboard input and display of data fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
" A computer system for tracking audience sentiment of a multimedia presentation electronically transmitted to different electronic devices for viewing by viewers, the computer system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to store sentiment input that is associated with clients of the multimedia presentation; at least one hardware processor configured to perform operations comprising: / A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer- executable instructions for use with a computer system that includes at least one hardware processor, the stored computer-executable instructions comprising instructions that cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations comprising:" (claims 2, 16, and 21) however the aforementioned elements merely amount to generic components of a general purpose computer used to "apply" the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.0S(f)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, furthermore the high-level recitation of receiving data from a generic "computer system" is at most an attempt to limit the abstract to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.0S(h), e.g.: "For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie lndem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags).") and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPE 2106.05(g)) and thus further fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
" transmitting, to one or more computing devices, the multimedia presentation for viewing by the viewers," (claims 2, 16, and 21), however the receiving of data from these sources is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering, and/or merely an attempt at limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (e.g. MPEP 2106.0S(h): "Examiners should keep in mind that this consideration overlaps with other considerations, particularly insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05{g)). For instance a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie lndem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017} (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags).");
Step 2B: Claims 2-21 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to a general purpose computer that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment (MPEP 2106.0S(f)), including merely limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use of analysis using a "computer system," as explained above, and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering or output, (MPEP 2106.0S(g)), as identified above, which is further found under step 2B to be merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser's back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to tracking audience sentiment by obtaining sentiment feedback during a plurality of time windows.
Claims 2-21 are accordingly rejected under 35 USC§ 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of any claim otherwise styled as a machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis.
For further authority and guidance, see:
MPEP § 2106
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility
Subject Matter Overcoming the Prior Art of Record
It appears that the instant invention is beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly the invention would NOT have been obvious because one of ordinary skill could not have been expected to achieve it, NOR would they have been able to predict the results, and as such, they would have had no capability of expecting success.
The following is an examiner's statement of features not found in the prior art of record:
Claims 2-21 overcome the prior art of record and are found to be allowable. The following limitations of claim 2,
…
modifying at least some of the sentiment inputs based on 1) weighting against other client sentiment input(s) from different clients within the corresponding time window, and 2) weighting against other sentiment input(s) from the same client that are not within the corresponding time window; calculating a sentiment result for each corresponding time window based at least in part on modification of at least some of the sentiment inputs;
…
in combination with the remainder of the claim limitations are neither taught nor suggested, singularly or in combination, by the prior art of record. Furthermore, neither the prior art, the nature of the problem, nor knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art provides for any predictable or reasonable rationale to combine prior art teachings. Independent claims 16 and 21, and dependent claims 3-15 and 17-20 are likewise provisionally allowable.
The closest prior art of record is described as follows:
Crenshaw (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0072939) - The abstract provides for the following: A system and method of measuring audience reaction to media content includes obtaining images or other information of each individual of the audience as the individual views the content and analyzing the images or other information with software to generate emotional response source data for each individual. The emotional response source data identifies the emotion or emotions or change of emotions of the individual as interpreted by the software. The emotional response source data of the individuals is aggregated to identify a set of primary emotions of the audience, and thereafter, the emotional response source data is re-evaluated in view of the primary emotions to refine and more accurately classify the emotional responses of each individual of the audience.
Horvitz et al. (U.S. Patent Number 9129008) - The abstract provides for the following: A set of comments associated with an item of media content is identified. A set of sentiment scores associated with the set of comments is generated, wherein each sentiment score indicates a type of sentiment expressed in a comment. The sentiment profile is generated responsive at least in part to the set of sentiment scores, the sentiment profile indicating the types of sentiment expressed in comments associated with the item of media content and stored in association with the item of media content.
Savage et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0126197) - The abstract provides for the following: A talent contest management platform provides an interface for artists to submit video presentations and fans to view the video presentations through the Internet to allow fans to vote to select artist talent contest winners from plural contest stages, each stage having an associated content genre. A voting system accepts fan votes over predetermined time periods, such as through plural contest rounds, until finalists picked by voting perform for a final vote round, such as by a live webcast. The voting system ensures a fair and fraud-free contest winner selection by tracking fan registrations, monitoring fan votes and analyzing voting results to detect and address voting fraud.
Viles et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0282650) - The abstract provides for the following: An interactive system and method allow for broadcast of basic content data along with data that define graphical inserts that can be played with or super-imposed on screens of the decoded broadcast. Coordinated pages or screens may be transmitted to audience secondary devices, such as smart phones, tablet computers, and so forth. Audience members may participate in an interactive experience by selecting options provided on the secondary devices. Audience responses are received, aggregated, and rules applied in accordance with the desired experience. The graphical indicia are altered during the broadcast, and optionally during or just following a period for audience feedback.
Paull (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0142704) - The abstract provides for the following: A viewer sentiment collection and analysis system provides a user interface to collect information during the performance or display of a media program. Sentiment indications are collected periodically, during the program, and recorded with information to permit the instantaneous indications to be associated with particular parts of the program.
Parnaby et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0018957) - The abstract provides for the following: The present invention provides a structured sentiment expression and management system and method. The present invention can receive sentiment content from at least two contributing users, wherein the received content is structured according to a specific human emotion, gesture or feeling and a level of intensity of the specific human emotion, gesture or feeling. The present invention further displays the received content in a pre-defined and user-selected sentiment category related to the specific human emotion, gesture or feeling.
Romagnolo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/00204664) - The abstract provides for the following: Systems and methods are described for evaluating and optimizing media content. A computer system for evaluating media content includes an input interface configured to receive a media content for evaluation by users in an online community, a media content presenter configured to present the media content to the users in the online community for evaluation, an informative signal monitor configured to gather informative signals relating to the media content from the users in the online community, a media content analyzer configured to evaluate the media content based on the informative signals from the users and generate an analysis result relating to the media content, and an incentive calculator configured to determine an incentive to one of the users in the online community based on the informative signals from the one of the users.
Syed Saad Husain et al. “An overview of Behavioral Analysis using Social Web Site Data.” The abstract provides for the following: Everyday millions of users can share or exchange their opinion through messages on social web sites. In various domains behavior analysis is critical for decision making. The behavioral data on social website can provide an economical and effective way to expose public opinion timely. The public behavior in messages can be used to obtain user feedback towards different company products; it can be utilized for marketing of different products or to track the popularity of different things. So there must be some methodologies to analyze user behavioral variations on social web sites and extract possible reasons behind such variations. This paper gives an overview of overall process for behavioral analysis. Earlier research work in the field of behavioral analysis is presented in this paper.
Andrew Chang et al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication Number WO 2012/100067 Al) - The abstract provides for the following: Embodiments of the invention provide techniques that quantize community interactions with social media to under -stand and influence consumer experiences. Uses for social media include improving brand impression through impression support and enhancement and monitoring / improving call center operations, among other services.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW H. DIVELBISS whose telephone number is (571) 270-0166. The fax phone number is 571-483-7110. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7:00 - 5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about PAIR, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M. H. D./
Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624